Progress of the New Jersey
Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Center for the Study of Social Policy
1575 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
October 30, 2008
Progress of the New Jersey
Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
January 1 – June 30, 2008
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
II.
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD ..........................................2
III.
PROGRESS REPORT: CURRENT STATE OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDRENA ND FAMILIES (DCF) .............................................16
A. Leadership ....................................................................................................................16
B. Budget ..........................................................................................................................16
C. Demographics of Children Served by DCF .................................................................17
IV.
CONTINUING TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE
AND MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................................19
A.
Caseloads ...............................................................................................................19
B.
Training ..................................................................................................................26
C.
The Statewide Central Registry and
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) .....................................................29
D. Accountability through the Production
and Use of Accurate Data ......................................................................................37
V.
CHANGING PRACTICE TO SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.......................41
A.
Implementing the New Case Practice Model.........................................................41
B.
Concurrent Planning Practice ................................................................................43
C.
Increasing Services to Families .............................................................................44
D.
Permanency Planning and Adoption ......................................................................51
Permanency for Older Youth .....................................................................52
VI.
APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN ..........................54
A.
Resource Families ..................................................................................................54
B.
Shelters...................................................................................................................62
C.
Services and Supports for Youth ...........................................................................62
VII.
MEETING THE MENTAL HEALTH AND HEALTH
NEEDS OF CHILDREN ..................................................................................................66
A.
The Division of Child Behavioral Health Services
continues to work on improving the behavioral
health services and delivery system .......................................................................66
B.
Health Care ............................................................................................................71
APPENDIX
A.
B.
Department of Children and Families Table of Organization
Caseload Data – June 2008
Table B1:
Table B2:
Table B3:
Table B4:
Table B5:
Table B6:
B.
Permanency
Intake
DYFS Supervisor/Caseload Carrying Staff Ratios
Adoption
Caseload Compliance
IAIU
Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1. Summary of State Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement
Requirements (January 1 – June 30, 2008) .................................................................. 7 - 15
2. Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement
June 30, 2008 .....................................................................................................................17
3. Children in Placement on June 30, 2008 ...........................................................................18
4. Training Compliance with Modified Settlement Agreement.............................................26
5. IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations pending
less than 60 days as recorded for the last date of each month
January – June 2008 ...........................................................................................................33
6. Expansion of Substance Abuse Services Utilization
January 1 – June 30, 2008 ..................................................................................................50
7. Adoption Finalizations (January – June 2008) ..................................................................51
8. Newly Licensed Kinship and Non-Kinship Resource Family Homes
By Month January – June 2008 .........................................................................................56
9. Total Number of Resource Family Homes Resolved
Within 150 Days - August 2008 to January 2008 ..............................................................57
10. Net Number of Resource Family Homes Licensed by County
January – June 2008 ...........................................................................................................60
11. Youth Transitional and Supported Housing Grants ...........................................................65
12. Out-of-State Placement Authorizations by DCBHS
January 1 - June 30, 2008 ..................................................................................................67
13. New Specialty Residential Capacity in New Jersey ..........................................................68
14. Youth in DYFS Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition
Awaiting Placement (January 1 - June 30, 2008) ..............................................................69
15. Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) Providers ..........70
16. Health Care Baseline, Target and Actual (June 2007 – June 2008) ..................................73
17. Child Health Unit Staffing (December 31, 2007 – August 14, 2008) ...............................75
18. Pre-Placement Assessments (January – June 2008) ..........................................................78
19. Comprehensive Medical Examinations for Children Entering
Out-of-Home Placements in Four Counties with Well-Developed
Child Health Units .............................................................................................................79
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1. NJ DCF/DYFS Permanency Caseloads .............................................................................20
2. NJ DCF/DYFS Intake Caseloads .......................................................................................22
3. NJ DCF/DYFS Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios .........................................................24
4. NJ DCF/DYFS Adoption Caseloads..................................................................................25
5. IAIU Referral Source
January 1 - June 30, 2008 ..................................................................................................31
6. Longest Waiting Teens by Race and Gender .....................................................................52
7. Number of Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes
January 1 - June 30, 2008 ..................................................................................................54
8. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship)
and Net Gain (January – June 2008) ..................................................................................55
9. Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2007 – June 2008) ..........................................67
10. Youth Placed Out-of-State .................................................................................................68
11. Select Children’s Initial Health Status and Status After Receiving
3 Months of Health Care Case Management (HCCM) ......................................................77
Progress of the New Jersey
Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
January 1 – June 30, 2008
I.
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Report
In July 2006, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed by the Honorable
Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as Monitor
of Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine. As Monitor, CSSP is to independently assess New Jersey’s
compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement
(MSA) of the class action litigation aimed at improving the State’s child welfare system.1 CSSP
released Monitoring Reports in February 2007, October 2007, and April 2008.2 This is the fourth
Monitoring Report under the MSA and covers the period of January 1, 2008 through June 30,
2008.
The MSA structures the State’s commitments into two phases of work. Phase I (through
December 2008) is primarily directed to establishing a strong infrastructure within the
Department of Children and Families (DCF) to ensure children are healthy and safe; children
achieve permanency and stability; and resource and service delivery systems meet children’s
health, mental health, educational and developmental needs. This fourth Monitoring Report
reflects the State’s continued work on these foundational elements, and pays particular attention
to DCF’s efforts to implement the new Case Practice Model, a central element of New Jersey’s
child welfare reforms. Beginning in January 2009, with the onset of Phase II, DCF will be held
accountable for measurable improvements in outcomes for children and families.
1
Charlie and Nadine H . et al. v. Corzine, Modified Settlement Agreement, United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Civ. Action No. 99-3678 (SRC), July 18, 2006. To see the full Agreement, go to
http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf.
2
See respectively, Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report
for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine—June 2006 through December 31, 2006. Washington, DC: Center for the
Study of Social Policy. February 26, 2007; Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families:
Period II Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine—January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007.
Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007; Progress of the New Jersey Department
of Children and Families: Period III Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine—July 1, 2007
through December 31, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. April 16, 2008.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 1
October 30, 2008
Methodology
The primary source of information for this Monitoring Report is information provided by DCF
and verified by the Monitor. DCF provides the Monitor with extensive aggregate and back up
data as well as access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify DCF data and report on
actions taken and progress made. During this monitoring period, the Monitor visited seven
Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) local offices, four of which were sites that are
receiving intensive support to implement the Case Practice Model (known as Immersion Sites).
Sites visited include: Mercer North, Burlington East, Gloucester West, and Bergen Central (all
Immersion Sites); and Camden, Burlington West, and Gloucester East. During these visits, the
Monitor spoke with various levels of DCF and DYFS staff, nurses in Child Health Units, and a
Differential Response community-based provider. The Monitor also interviewed and/or visited
many external stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including contracted service
providers, emergency shelters, foster parents, relatives and birth parents, advocacy organizations,
judicial officers, and staff of the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA).
II.
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD
Summary of Accomplishments
In the six month period covered by this report, the Department of Children and Families (DCF)
has undergone two significant leadership changes. The first commissioner of DCF, Kevin Ryan,
resigned in March 2008 and Eileen Crummy, Director of the Division of Youth and Family
Services (DYFS) was appointed as the interim Acting Commissioner. In June 2008, Governor
Corzine appointed Kimberly Ricketts as the Commissioner of DCF. Such significant leadership
change at both DCF and DYFS (which had a new Director, Christine Mozes, appointed in March
2008) in such a short period of time had the potential to stall or even derail reform efforts.
Despite the leadership changes, however, DCF has continued to drive forward the
implementation of the new Case Practice Model and has strived to meet all requirements under
the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) during this monitoring period. The State and DCF
leadership, under the new Commissioner, remain fully committed to achieving the outcomes of
the MSA.
While the MSA was consciously crafted to give the State time to build a solid infrastructure
before being held accountable for child and family results, there is now beginning evidence of
change taking hold in the field. In the site visits to seven DYFS local offices, the Monitor saw
both managers and workers positively engaged in the reforms. Previous site visits in 2007 found
DYFS local offices grappling to train and integrate large numbers of new staff, to understand the
expectations of the new Case Practice Model, and to keep up with the rapid pace of change
required by the State’s child welfare reform effort. In the most recent visits, DYFS local office
managers, supervisors, and caseworkers understood the Case Practice Model and were actively
pursuing strategies to implement the Model and address its challenges. Many staff could
articulate how the State’s investments in staff, training, and services over the past two years and
the new Case Practice Model have the potential to improve outcomes for children and families.
Staff was able to report several meaningful examples of how their work with families shifted and
is beginning to produce better results in some individual cases. Workers expressed relief at
lower caseloads, but noted continued frustration with mastering the new computer system (NJ
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 2
October 30, 2008
SPIRIT) and in working around the glitches that still remain with the system. Local leadership
discussed their many strategies to manage the pace of the reform and support their workers. The
local offices visited appeared stable and the majority of workers seem committed to staying and
improving how DYFS serves families.
Additional highlights of the Monitor’s assessment of progress include:
The Department continues to build the necessary infrastructure for lasting reform. Examples
include:
•
DCF achieved or exceeded the June 2008 average caseload targets set for Permanency,
Intake and Adoption staff. Site visits confirmed that individual caseloads of workers
across the State have been reduced to manageable levels.
•
As expected, the number of new hires was dramatically reduced this period as the
agency’s overall staffing stabilized. Training of new staff is occurring in a timely
manner. Of the 117 new staff hired into Family Service Specialist Trainee (FSST) and
Family Service Specialist 2 (FSS 2) positions during this monitoring period, 114 new
workers completed the Pre-Service training or comparable training by June 30, 2008 (or
had been previously trained3) and passed competency exams.
•
Eighty-seven staff members were trained in Concurrent Planning as part of the State’s
work to improve permanency outcomes for children. Thirty-eight of 48 new Adoption
workers completed adoption training in this monitoring period. The remaining workers
are scheduled to be trained in October 2008.
•
The State trained 35 new supervisors between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008.
Twelve of the 35 supervisors trained were appointed during the previous monitoring
period and trained during the past six months. Twenty-three of the 35 supervisors trained
were appointed during this monitoring period.4 All 35 new supervisors completed 40
hours of supervisory training and passed competency exams. The State created a more
rigorous review process for identifying supervisors who need to improve supervisory
skills.
3
Twenty-four of 27 of the workers who were hired after a year internship at the DYFS in the Baccalaureate Child
Welfare Education Program completed comparable worker readiness training. Three BCWEP workers deferred
training while they completed their MSW degree; they are scheduled for training beginning November 2008. The
Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP) is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers
University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Kean
University, and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree.
4
Twenty-three of the 31 supervisors that were hired in this monitoring period were trained during this monitoring
period. The remaining eight hired in this monitoring period will begin training in July and complete it within the
required six-month time frame.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 3
October 30, 2008
The Department has continued to implement the new Case Practice Model that is intended to
improve outcomes for children and families.
•
As of June 2008, DCF trained a total of 3,595 staff on the first module of the Case
Practice Model training, Developing Trust Based Relationships, and is well positioned to
complete training on the second module, Making Visits Matter, by the target date of
December 2008.
•
Following a rigorous schedule of training, coaching and mentoring provided by DCF and
the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG), a total of 397 staff were trained
in the first four Immersion Sites—Bergen Central, Burlington East, Gloucester West and
Mercer North.
•
The Department made progress throughout the State on gaining experience in convening
Family Team Meetings, where families plan with the Department and other invited
service providers for permanency for children. The Monitor saw beginning evidence in
the Immersion Sites and other places that family meetings are held more regularly and
conducted with greater skill.
Significant service resources continue to be added to support children, youth, and families.
•
DCF moved forward to procure many additional resources for children and families
through the Requests for Proposals (RFP) process. The RFPs issued included: intensive
in-home parent training, expansion of Differential Response, support of Family Team
Meetings, and expansion of substance abuse treatment providers.
•
Field visits revealed workers are beginning to creatively use special funds, known as Flex
Funds, to support children’s placement and promote stability and well-being. Funds have
been used to remove bed bugs, pay for utility bills, send children to dance competitions
and summer camp, and buy necessary and expensive specialized infant formula to help
keept children safe with their family and/or support stable out-of-home placements.
Small, but significant changes have resulted in improved outcomes for children and families.
•
Adoptions are continuing at a steady pace. From January – June 2008, 478 legally free
children had their adoptions finalized. DCF is also making a concerted effort to find
permanent families for children and youth who have significant mental health,
educational, emotional, and behavioral challenges. Three of the “100 longest waiting
teens” had their adoptions finalized in this reporting period.
•
DCF has made significant progress in licensing and supporting Resource Family homes.
DCF recruited and licensed 992 new kin and non-kin Resource Families in the first six
months of 2008, far exceeding its target of 764 homes. The total number of newly
licensed kinship homes in this monitoring period increased dramatically; 40 percent of
the 992 Resource Family homes licensed in the past six months are kinship homes.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 4
October 30, 2008
Further, DCF achieved a total net gain of 414 Resource Family homes in the first half of
2008.
•
The early implementation of the health care plan to deploy nurses and staff assistants to
Child Health Units in DYFS local offices is promising. A significant number of children
entering out-of-home care in locations with fully functioning Child Health Units is
receiving timely medical care. For example, looking at data from areas with fully
developed Child Health Units, only 39 percent of children had evidence of up-to-date
immunizations when they were removed from their homes, but within three months of
receiving case management services, 95 percent of these children’s immunizations were
up-to-date.
•
Statewide, 100 percent of children entering out-of-home care received pre-placement
health care assessments. For the majority of children and youth, these assessments (91%
in June 2008) occurred in a non-emergency room setting.
•
There has been a continuing and dramatic reduction in the number of children and youth
placed outside of the state of New Jersey. During this monitoring period, only 19
children were newly placed out of the state (8 of whom were in DYFS custody).5
Combined efforts to prevent new out-of-state placements and to develop appropriate new
resources to serve children and youth in the state has resulted in a 52 percent decline in
youth placed out-of-state from June 2007 (305 youth) to June 2008 (159 youth).
Challenges ahead
Much has been accomplished in this monitoring period and progress continues to be evident in
all of the major areas of the reform. In the first three Monitoring Reports, DCF met nearly every
requirement of the MSA for the period evaluated. In this period, DCF met almost all of the
performance targets although there were MSA requirements that were only partially or not met.
Table 1 following summarizes State progress on MSA requirements between January 1 and June
30, 2008.
DCF will face higher expectations for performance as Phase I ends in December and Phase II
requirements begin. Specifically, by June 2009, caseload standards will be evaluated not by
average caseload in a DYFS local office but by individual worker caseload. This will require
DCF leadership and managers to consistently monitor and report on individual caseloads of
workers.
Although DCF has made impressive strides in this period in implementing its Case Practice
Model, the challenge ahead will be to increase coaching, training and mentoring capacity within
the state sufficient to support and maintain the sweeping practice change underway. The
Monitor urges DCF to consider deploying more staff centrally and in DYFS local offices whose
exclusive responsibility is to help support the implementation of the Case Practice Model. A
corresponding effort to fully engage judges, attorneys, and other partners in the new Case
5
The other 11 children were placed through DCBHS but were not in DYFS custody.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 5
October 30, 2008
Practice Model is needed in order to fully realize the benefits to children and families of change
in DCF practice.
DCF’s health plan, released in May 2007, committed to the creation of fully staffed and
functioning Child Health Units statewide by December 2008. Data from the first four fully
functioning Child Health Units suggest that this is a promising model for coordinating the health
care of children in out-of-home placement. Unfortunately, the statewide shortage of nurses and
the length of time required to hire identified nurses have slowed the progress of developing these
units. DCF has recognized these challenges and will need to continue to work diligently to have
all Child Health Units fully staffed. DCF reports that units will be fully staffed with staff
assistants by December 2008 and with nurses by June 2009, six months later than their original
target date. Further, DCF continues to be challenged to find medical and dental providers who
will accept Medicaid and treat children and youth involved with DYFS.
Finally, DCF leadership must fundamentally enhance staff’s ability use NJ SPIRIT so that the
Department can collect and analyze data and produce timely and accurate reports for individual
workers, managers, and the general public. Based on meetings with DCF leadership and DYFS
local office visits, the Monitor recognizes that the State continues to diligently refine and
improve NJ SPIRIT to collect, analyze and report on data for management and public
accountability and to support the field staff as they master the new system. However, it is also
apparent that challenges remain in improving staff competency in using the system and aspects
of NJ SPIRIT functioning. Work is still underway to clean the data that is currently in NJ
SPIRIT so that it is accurate and that it is accurately reflected in reporting programs such as Safe
Measures. Additionally, DYFS local offices and DCF Central Office staff continue to
laboriously collect and verify data through hand counts or other electronic systems because
programs do not exist to pull data or, if they do exist, data are not consistently precise. The
Monitor believes that a significant portion of the problems can be remedied by providing DYFS
local offices with additional support such as targeted training for staff and the re-introduction of
local Super Users (dedicated staff who were available locally the first few months after the
conversion to NJ SPIRIT) who provided support to individual workers and updates to DYFS
local offices on system-wide changes and glitches.
Taking into account the wide range of activities and requirements during this period, the State
should be acknowledged for its accomplishments and its continued focus on moving forward
with urgency on statewide child welfare reforms.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 6
October 30, 2008
Table 1: Summary of State Progress on
Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(January 1, 2008 through June 30, 2008)
Settlement Agreement
Fulfilled
Requirements
Due Date
(Yes/No)6
Comments
PHASE I
New Case Practice Model
II.A.4. Identify the methodology
used in tracking successful
implementation of the Case Practice
Model in order to create baseline data
that will be available for key case
practice elements.
December 2007
Monitor is
still
negotiating.
The Monitor, in consultation
with the parties, defined the
measures and methodology for
tracking implementation of the
Case Practice Model.
Baseline performance data are
needed from the State in some
areas in order for the Monitor
to establish benchmarks and
outcomes.
Training
Pre-Service Training
II.B.1.b. 100% of all new case
carrying workers shall be enrolled in
Pre-Service Training, including
training in intake and investigations,
within two weeks of their start date.
Ongoing
Yes
114 out of 117 (97%) new
workers hired between 1/1/08
and 6/30/08 were enrolled in
training within 2 weeks of their
start date. 24 of the new
workers were BCWEP7
students who did not formally
take DYFS Pre-Service
training, but were provided
comparable training through
their university curriculum and
DYFS worker readiness
training. 3 BCWEP workers
deferred training while they
completed their MSW degree
and are scheduled to begin
training in 11/2008.
6
“Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has substantially
fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the Modified Settlement Agreement for the January 1, 2008
– June 30, 2008 monitoring period or is substantially on track to fulfill an obligation expected to have begun during
this period and be complete in a subsequent monitoring period. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF
has not fulfilled its obligation regarding the requirement. “Partially” reflects the Monitor’s judgment that a
significant part but not all of the requirement has been met.
7
Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program, Stockton College: The Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education
Program (BCWEP) is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University,
Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Kean University, and Ramapo College) that
enables students to earn the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 7
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
Ongoing
Yes
From 2/15/08 to 6/30/08, 96
out of a total of 102 (94%)
eligible trainees were assessed
using the new Trainee
Caseload Readiness
Assessment Tool and passed
that assessment during the
monitoring period.9 Workers
passed competency exams after
each training module.
II.B.2. c. 100% of case carrying
workers and supervisors shall take a
minimum of 40 hours of annual InService Training and shall pass
competency exams.
Ongoing
Annual Requirement
Spanning JanuaryDecember 2008
In progress
520 of 4,000 staff have
completed 40 or more hours of
training so far in 2008. DCF
expects to reach this obligation
by December 2008 once all
staff completes Module 2 of
the Case Practice Model
training. Workers are required
passed competency exams after
each Module.
II.B.2.d. The State shall implement
in-service training on Concurrent
Planning for all existing staff.
Ongoing
Yes
87 staff (100%) was trained on
Concurrent Planning between
1/1/08 and 6/30/08.
II.B.2.e. 100% of cases carrying
staff, supervisors and case aides that
have not been trained in the new
Case Practice Model shall have
received this training.
Ongoing
Yes
3,595 out of 4,000 (90%) staff
statewide was trained in the
Case Practice Model plus an
additional 397 staff in
Immersion Sites received
intensive training, for a total of
3,992 trained (99%).
Ongoing
Yes
127 of 150 (85%) new
investigations staff was trained
between 1/1/08 and 6/30/08;
another 23 were trained by
August 2008 for a total of 150
(100%) trained. All passed
competency exams.
II.B.1.c. No case carrying worker
shall assume a full caseload until
completing Pre-Service Training and
passing competency exams. 8
Comments
In-Service Training
Investigations/Intake Training
II.B.3.a. All new staff responsible for
conducting intake or investigations
shall receive specific, quality training
on intake and investigations process,
policies and investigations techniques
and pass competency exams before
assuming responsibility for cases.
8
Competency exams are given at the conclusion of every Pre-Service training module. In addition, following the
completion of the training, new workers are assessed with a Trainee Caseload Readiness Assessment Tool to
determine whether they are sufficiently prepared to assume a full caseload.
9
The remaining six trainees have been assessed, outside of this monitoring period, and passed the assessment.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 8
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
Ongoing
Yes
35(100%) newly appointed
supervisors were trained
between 1/1/08 and 6/30/08
and passed competency exams.
II.C.4. The State will develop a plan
for appropriate service delivery for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender
and questioning youth, and begin to
implement the plan.
June 2007/
Ongoing
Partially
DCF has developed a
preliminary plan. There is
marginal evidence of
implementation. More focused
attention and resources are
required to meaningfully
implement the plan statewide.
II.C.5. The State will promulgate and
implement policies for youth 18-21
to ensure the State continues to
provide services previously available.
June 2007/
Ongoing
Yes
(progress
continuing)
Policies developed. New
services for 18-21 year olds
available, but additional
services/resources need to be
developed.
II.C.8 The State will support an
additional 250 child care slots for
children whose families are involved
with DYFS above the baseline
available as of June 2006
June 2008
Yes
The State has funded an
additional 322 protective
services child care slots
between June 2006 and June
2008.
II.C.9 The State will expand its
support of the violence prevention
and child therapy initiative, “Peace:
A Learned Solution” (PALS) to four
additional counties above the number
of counties where PALS operates as
of June 2006.
June 2008
Yes
The new PALS programs in
Atlantic, Monmouth, Ocean
and Union Counties served 138
children and 83 non-offending
parents.
II.C.10 The State will increase the
flexible funding available, above the
amount available as of December
2006, to meet the unique needs of
children and birth families.
June 2008
Yes
In State Fiscal Year 2007, $2.7
million was allocated to
flexible funds. In State Fiscal
Year 2008, $3.7 million was
allocated for flexible funds.
II.C.11 The State will add 18
transitional living program beds for
youth between the ages of 16 and 21,
above the number of beds available
in June 2006.
June 2008
Yes
DCF has added 263 transitional
living beds, exceeding the
MSA requirement.
Comments
Supervisory Training
II.B.4.b. 100% of all staff newly
promoted to supervisory positions
shall complete their 40 hours of
supervisory training and shall have
passed competency exams within 6
months of assuming supervisory
positions
Services for Children and Families
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 9
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
Comments
June 2008
Partially
(new
services
procured but
not all are
operational)
The state funded 30 new
residential treatment slots, 64
new intensive substance abuse
outpatient treatment slots and
20 new residential treatment
slots for youth.10
II.D.1. The State shall implement an
accurate real time bed tracking
system to manage the number of beds
available from the DCBHS and
match those with children who need
them.
Ongoing
Yes
The State has implemented and
utilizes a real time bed tracking
system to match children with
DCBHS placements.
II.D.2. The State shall create a
process to ensure that no child shall
be sent to an out-of-state congregate
care facility. The process will also
ensure that for any child who is sent
out-of-state an appropriate plan to
maintain contacts with family and
return the child in-state as soon as
appropriate.
Ongoing
Yes
For DYFS-involved youth,
DCBHS’ Director reviews case
information for each request
for an out-of-state placement,
making specific
recommendations in each case
for tracking and follow-up by
Team Leads based in DYFS
area offices.
II.D.3. The State shall evaluate the
needs of the children in custody, who
are currently placed in out-of-state
services to serve these children, and
develop action steps with timetables
to develop those services and
placements.
Ongoing
Yes
DCBHS has completed case
conferences for each child in
an out-of-state residential
facility resulting in the return
of some children to New
Jersey, plans to return others,
and individualized plans for
follow-up by DYFS Team
Leads working in conjunction
with DCBHS.
II.C.12 The State will increase
substance abuse services to DCFinvolved parents and children to
include (i) 30 new residential
treatment slots for parents; (ii) 50
new intensive outpatient care slots
for parents; and (iii) 20 new
residential treatment slots for youth.
Due Date
Finding Children Appropriate Placements
10
These totals include 8 intensive outpatient slots (with a housing component) for mothers and children and 17
adolescent residential treatment slots that were included in a Request for Proposal issued in May 2008. The 8
outpatient slots will be operational by November 1, 2008. The RFP for 17 adolescent residential treatment slots will
be re-issued in October 2008. The Department expects these services to be operational by March 2009. DCF
reports also funding substance abuse services through purchase of service agreements.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 10
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
II.D.5. The State shall implement an
automated system for identifying
youth in its custody being held in
juvenile detention facilities are
placed within 30 days of disposition
Ongoing
Yes
One DYFS youth remained in
detention for more than 30
days. The State has had
automated systems to track
youth in detention since 2006
though they are not always
aligned.
II.D.7. The State shall not place a
child under the age of 13 in a shelter.
Ongoing
Yes
5 (.06%) of 7,728 youth under
age 13 in out-of-home care
during the monitoring period
were placed in shelters.
II.D.8. DYFS will eliminate the
inappropriate use of shelters as an
out-of-home placement for children
in custody.
June 2007/Ongoing
No
358 (79%) of 451 youth aged
13 and over in out-of-home
care were placed in shelters in
compliance with the MSA
exceptions.
December 2006/Ongoing
Partially
The State is posting caseload
data, but has not started to post
it quarterly. June 2008 data
was posted in October 2008.
A previous posting was 6
months prior.
II.E.4. The State shall make Safe
Measures accessible to all staff.
Ongoing
Yes
Safe Measures is accessible to
case managers, supervisors,
and office management. Some
Safe Measures reports are not
accurate due to data issues in
NJ SPIRIT.
II.E.15. 95% of offices shall have
average caseloads for the
permanency staff at the caseload
standard of 15 families or less and 10
children in out-of-home care or less.
June 2008
Yes
DCF continues to meet the
average caseload standards for
permanency staff with 96% of
offices achieving the standard.
II.E.16. 74% of offices shall have
average caseloads for the intake staff
of 12 families or less and 8 new
referrals per month or less.
June 2008
Yes
DCF continues to meet the
average caseload standards for
intake staff with 96% of offices
achieving the standard.
Comments
Caseloads
II.E.2. The State shall provide on a
quarterly basis an accurate caseload
data to Plaintiffs and the public via
the DCF website
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 11
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
II.E.17. 95% of offices shall have
sufficient supervisory staff to
maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor
ratio.
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
June 2008
No
87% of offices met the
supervisory ratio standard.
DCF was unable to meet the
supervisory ratio standard
because of vacant supervisory
positions at the end of June,
some of which were filled in
August 2008.
June 2008
benchmarks
– NOT
MET, or
UNABLE
TO
MEASURE
on a
statewide
basis.
Indicator 1:
DCF fell slightly short of June
2008 benchmark for preplacement assessments
occurring in a non-emergency
room setting.
Comments
Provision of Health Care
II.F.5. and II.F.6
Set health care baseline and targets.
Methodology for tracking
compliance decided. The following
indicators were negotiated in June
2007, with first benchmarks
measured in June 2008.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Pre-Placement assessment
completed in a nonemergency room setting.
Comprehensive medical
exams completed within 60
days of child’s entry into
care.
Medical examinations in
compliance with EPSDT
guidelines for children in
care for one year or more.
Semi-annual dental
examinations for children
ages 3 and older in care six
months or more.
Mental health assessments
for children with a
suspected mental health
need.
Receipt of timely accessible
and appropriate follow-up
care and treatment to meet
health care and mental
health needs.
Children are current with
immunizations.
Children’s caregivers
receive an up-to-date health
passport within 3 days of
placement.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Baseline as
of June
2007
June
2008
Benchmark
June
2008
Actual
90%
95%
91%
75%
75%
27%
75%
75%
Data Not
Available
Annual
60%
Annual
60%
Data Not
Available
SemiAnnual
33%
SemiAnnual
Benchmark not
set
Data Not
Available
75%
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
60%
Data Not
Available
Not Set
Data Not
Available
Not Set
Data Not
Available
Indicator 2:
DCF did not provide the
majority of children with
Comprehensive Medical exams
within 60 days of out-of-home
placement—27% received
timely exams.
Indicators 3 – 6:
Statewide data not available
Indicators 7 & 8:
Baselines and benchmarks
have not been set due to data
and methodology issues.
Page 12
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
II.G.5. The State shall continue to
provide paralegal support and child
case summary writer support for
adoption staff in local offices.
Ongoing
Yes
DCF continues to provide
paralegal support. DCF reports
that case summary writers are
available in each Area Office.
II.G.9. The State shall provide
adoption training to adoption
workers.
Ongoing
Yes
38 out of 48 new adoption
workers were trained during
the monitoring period; the
remaining 10 to be trained in
October 2008.
II.G.15. The State shall issue reports
based on the adoption process
tracking system.
December 2007/
Ongoing
Partially
An adoption process tracking
system exists. Although
designed to track all elements,
DCF reports it does not
currently track termination of
parental rights filings, appeals
of terminations and timeliness
of adoption placements.
II.G.18 95% of offices will have
average caseloads for adoption staff
of 18 or fewer, with a subset of 60%
of total offices achieving average
caseloads for adoption staff of 15 or
fewer children.
June 2008
Yes
DCF continues to meet the
standard for adoptions. 95% of
offices met the standard, 69%
of offices met the subset
requirement.
II.H.4. The period for processing
resource family applications through
licensure will be 150 days.
December 2006/Ongoing
No
The State continued to improve
performance on the 150 day
timeframe. Between 8/07 and
1/08 DCF resolved an average
of 43% of applications within
150 days.
II.H.9. The State shall create an
accurate and quality tracking and
target setting system for ensuring
there is a real time list of current and
available resource families.
Ongoing
Yes
Workers have access and do
use the tool. However, despite
investing in training to make
this tool accessible to workers,
it is used inconsistently by
workers in the field.
January 2008
Yes
DCF continues to reach targets
for large capacity Resource
Family homes and homes
targeted by county.
Comments
Permanency Planning and Adoption
Resource Families
II.H.13 The State shall implement
the methodology for setting
annualized targets for resource
family non-kin recruitment.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 13
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
II.H.14 The State shall provide
flexible funding at the same level or
higher than provided in FY’07 to
ensure that families are able to
provide appropriate care for children
and to avoid the disruption of
otherwise stable and appropriate
placements.
June 2008
Yes
In State Fiscal Year 2007, $2.7
million was allocated to
flexible funds. In State Fiscal
Year 2008, $3.7 million was
allocated for flexible funds.
II.H.15 Continue to further close by
25% the gap between current
resource family support rates and the
USDA’s estimated cost of raising a
child.
January 2008
Yes
New Resource Family rates
became effective January 1,
2008.
Comments
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)
II.I.3 The State shall complete 80%
of IAIU investigations within 60 days
Ongoing
Yes
80% of all IAIU investigations
were completed within 60 days.
II.I.5. The State shall hire sufficient
IAIU field investigators such that
95% of investigators shall have no
more than 8 new cases per month and
12 open cases at a time.
June 2008
Yes
45 of 47 (96%) of IAIU
investigators met the caseload
standard. The IAIU
investigators are being held to
the same caseload standard as
other Child Protective Services
investigators.
II.J.2. The State shall initiate
management reporting based on Safe
Measures.
September 2006/Ongoing
Partially
Safe Measure reports are
generated for management
purposes. However, reports are
not consistently accurate.
II.J.3 and 5. The State shall identify,
ensure and publish additional
indicators.
November 2006
February 2007/
Ongoing
Partially
DCF did publish some
additional indicators since
February 2007. However,
regular reports on key
performance indicators are not
yet available.
Data
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 14
October 30, 2008
Settlement Agreement
Requirements
II.J.6. The State shall annually
produce DCF agency performance
reports.
Due Date
Fulfilled
(Yes/No)6
Comments
February 2007/
Ongoing
No
DC has not produced annual
DCF agency performance
reports. DCF and Monitor
have begun discussions about
the content of an annual report.
II.J.9. The State shall issue regular,
accurate reports from Safe Measures.
August 2007/Ongoing
Partially
DCF has the capacity and is
producing reports from Safe
Measures. However, reports
are not consistently reliable
and accurate as staff learn to
input data properly and use NJ
SPIRIT and as the state fixes
remaining system glitches.
II.J.10. The State shall produce
caseload reporting that tracks
caseloads by office and type of
worker and, for permanency and
adoption workers, that tracks children
as well as families.
Ongoing
Yes
The State has provided the
Monitor with a report for June
2008 that provides individual
worker caseloads of children
and families for intake,
permanency, and adoption
workers.
II.J.11. The State shall maintain an
accurate worker roster.
Ongoing
Yes
The DYFS Director and DCF
HR Director review vacancies
with DYFS local offices
monthly and, at least semiannually, the worker rosters in
each office are reconciled to
produce caseload reports for
monitoring purposes.
In process
Negotiation among DCF,
plaintiffs and Monitor has not
concluded.
PHASE II
Targeted Performance Levels for Critical Outcomes
III.A.2.a.i. Interim and final targets
will be set for reunification and
adoption.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
June 2008
Page 15
October 30, 2008
III.
PROGRESS REPORT: CURRENT STATE OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (DCF)
A.
Leadership
Upon the resignation of Kevin Ryan in March 2008 (the first Commissioner of New Jersey’s
Department of Children and Families), Eileen Crummy, former DYFS Director was appointed
to serve as the interim Acting DCF Commissioner. The accomplishments of this reporting
period can be attributed in large part to the overlapping leadership of these two Commissioners
and their shared vision and commitment to reforming New Jersey’s child welfare system. In
June 2008, Governor Corzine appointed Acting Commissioner Kimberly Ricketts to lead DCF.
Although in place only a few short months, Commissioner Ricketts has made a smooth transition
into her leadership role. Maintaining many of the leadership staff and DCF infrastructure
developed under the prior commissioners, Commissioner Ricketts has quickly embraced the
State’s commitments to achieve the goals of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA).
Having extensive background in government but limited experience in the field of child welfare,
Commissioner Ricketts has spent her first few months learning quickly and thoroughly about the
strengths and challenges of the reform effort. She has visited DYFS local offices, spoken with
frontline workers and supervisors, and accompanied field staff on investigations. She has
reached out to child welfare leaders in other states undertaking reform and has established a
collaborative relationship with the Monitor.
Appendix A is the new organization chart reflecting the current leadership of DCF. Notably,
Commissioner Ricketts’ executive team includes many of the key staff who served under
Commissioners Ryan and Crummy. During Acting Commissioner Crummy’s tenure, a new
DYFS Director, Christine Mozes, was appointed who continues to serve in that key position.
There is a newly appointed Chief of Staff. The Department is recruiting to fill positions to
support its strategic planning and data management work.
B.
Budget
DCF’s FY2009 budget, approved by the Legislature, provides continued funding for the child
welfare reform commitments of the Modified Settlement Agreement as part of DCF’s overall
budget. DCF’s FY2008 Adjusted Appropriation totaled $1,524,482,000 and the FY2009
Appropriation Act totals $1,523,785,000.
New Jersey, like almost every state, is experiencing severe fiscal pressures, however, in the
FY2009 budget, the Governor and Legislature have protected the ability of DCF to move
forward with the reform. The Monitor anticipates that the Governor and Legislature will
continue to support reforms required by the MSA. The Monitor will continue to review the
sufficiency of the State’s budget to carry out these reforms.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 16
October 30, 2008
C.
Demographics of Children Served by DCF
As of June 30, 2008, a total of 48,647 children were receiving services in placement (9,375
children) or in their own homes (39,272) from DYFS. Of children in placement, 4,424 (47%)
were placed in non-relative Resource Family homes, 3,548 (38%) were in kinship care, 1,253
(13%) were living in congregate care facilities, and 150 (2%) were in independent living
programs.
As seen in Table 2 below, 40 percent of children in out-of-home care were age 5 or under, with
the largest single group (children 2 or younger) comprising 25 percent of the out-of-home
placement population. Thirty-five percent of the population was age 13 or older, with 6 percent
age 18 or older. DCF is unable currently to provide specific demographic data regarding the
race/ethnicity of children in DYFS custody.
Table 2: Selected Demographics for
Children in Out-of-Home Placement
June 30, 2008
June 30, 2008
Gender
Percent
48%
52%
0%
Female
Male
Unknown
100%
TOTAL
Age
Percent
25%
15%
15%
11%
15%
13%
6%
100% (9375)
2 years or less
3-5 years
6-9 years
10-12 years
13-15 years
16-17 years
18+ years
TOTAL
Placement Type
Resource Family (non-kin)
Kinship Care
Group & Residential
Independent Living
TOTAL
Number
Percent
4424
3548
1253
150
47%
38%
13%
2%
9375
100%
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 17
October 30, 2008
Table 3: Children in Placement on June 30, 2008
Group and
Residential
Kinship
Placement Type
Resource
Family
(non-Kin)
To 2 Yrs
60
923
1,328
0
2,311
3 to 5 Yrs
24
687
685
0
1,396
6 to 9 Yrs
61
697
681
0
1,439
10 to 12 Yrs
91
423
499
0
1,013
13 to 15 Yrs
374
421
591
0
1,386
16 and 17 Yrs
466
310
428
38
1,242
18 and Older
177
87
212
112
588
1,253
3,548
4,424
150
9,375
Age Category
Total
Independent
Living
Total
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 18
October 30, 2008
IV.
CONTINUING TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE AND
MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
A.
Caseloads
Over the last two years, the DCF workforce has changed in many ways. Its number has grown
rapidly across the State. Currently the workforce is increasingly stable, gaining in experience and
populated by workers responsible for a far smaller number of cases than two years ago. The
State continued to demonstrate progress in this area during this reporting period. Phase I of the
Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) measures the average caseloads across all offices. By
June 2009, the caseload standard will be applied to individual workers and requires at least 95
percent of individual workers to have caseloads meeting the standard. (MSA Section III.B.1)
Lower caseloads across the State have not only produced greater stability in the workforce, but
have created an environment conducive to moving forward with the Case Practice Model
implementation and other reforms. As of June 30, 2008, the State reported that only 15 DYFS
case managers had caseloads of more than 20 families. That represents less than one percent of
the total available case managers. All but one of the 15 case managers had caseloads between 21
and 24 families. The remaining case manager had 27 families. No case manager had more than
30 families.11
The Monitor verified the caseload information primarily though follow-up with DYFS local
offices during site visits in July through September 2008. This follow-up consisted of comparing
the information provided directly by workers with the individual local office reports and
summary data supplied by DCF. The Monitor collected information directly from all case
managers who participated in focus groups and reviewed caseload reports from Safe Measures
with local office leadership. Because of adjustments still being made to the data that was
converted into NJ SPIRIT from previous systems, caseload data in Safe Measures is not
consistently reliable. However, local managers were able to produce caseload reports for the
days of the site visits and identify discrepancies in caseload numbers on the Safe Measures
reports. No case managers cited caseloads that varied significantly from the June 2008 NJ
SPIRIT caseload report or the daily Safe Measures report.
DCF/DYFS exceeded the June 2008 caseload target set for Permanency staff.
Permanency workers provide case management of services to families whose children remain at
home under the protective supervision of DYFS and those families whose children are removed
from home due to safety concerns. To ensure staff has the time to devote to children and
families with diverse needs and circumstances, the State agreed to achieve a caseload standard
that has two intertwined components. One component is the number of families and the other
component is the number of children placed out-of-home. This has been referred to as a “two
prong” standard. Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in
out-of-home care. If a case manager has a caseload higher than either of these components, the
caseload is not compliant with the MSA standard (Section II.E).
11
For detailed information of caseload compliance by DYFS local office, see Appendix B, Table B5.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 19
October 30, 2008
During Phase I (until December 2008), caseload compliance is measured by average caseloads in
an office. By December 2007 and thereafter in Phase I, 95 percent of all offices are to have
average caseloads for the Permanency workers that meet the two-pronged standard (Section
II.E.12).
As displayed in Figure 1, the State exceeded this target with 96 percent of the offices having
average caseloads for available Permanency workers of 15 or fewer families and 10 or fewer
children in out-of-home placement. For the two offices that did not meet the standard, the
caseloads did average fewer than 10 children in placement, but averaged 16 and 17 families per
permanency worker. Appendix B, Table B1 contains supporting details for each office.
Mar-06 Dec-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Jun-08
Figure 1: NJ DCF/DYFS Permanency Caseloads
Actual: 15 families & 10
children in placement
96%
Target: 15 families & 10
children in placement
95%
Actual: 15 families & 10
children in placement
100%
Target: 15 families & 10
children in placement
95%
Actual: 15 families & 10
children in placement
84%
Target: 15 families & 10
children in placement
79%
Actual: 15 families & 10
children in placement
60%
Target: 15 families & 10
children in placement
60%
Baseline: 15 families & 10
children in placement
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of DYFS offices meeting standard
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
Note: Adoption staff and cases were included in Permanency Caseloads in March 2006 only.
During visits to DYFS local offices, the Monitor learned that some offices are experimenting
with caseload strategies to improve services to adolescents and those children who have a
concurrent permanency goal. These offices are designating certain permanency staff and, in
some cases, entire units as “Adolescent” workers or “Concurrent” workers. The Adolescent
worker is being modeled after the role of the Adoption worker and the leadership in the local
offices visited believed that it is appropriate for these workers to have caseloads of 15 children as
established for Adoption workers. DCF and DYFS leadership have recently clarified with the
Area Directors that the caseload standard applicable to Adolescent workers is 15 families but no
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 20
October 30, 2008
more than 10 children/youth in out-of-home placement, the same standard that applies to
Permanency workers. During the last monitoring period, adolescent units, with workers devoted
to working with older adolescents, were established in 11 DYFS local offices. Two additional
offices have adolescent specialists within regular permanency units. Such experimentation is
certainly allowed under the MSA as long as these specially designated caseloads do not exceed
the caseload standards for permanency staff. However, it is important that the State remain
vigilant about pursuing permanent families for adolescents and not merely focus on providing
independent living services.
DCF/ DYFS exceeded the June 2008 caseload target set for Intake staff.
DYFS Intake staff is responsible for responding to community concerns regarding child safety
and well-being. They receive referrals from the State Central Registry (SCR) and depending on
the nature of the referral, they have between 2 hours and 5 days to visit the home and begin their
investigation or assessment. They are to complete their investigation or assessment within 60
days.
The caseload standard for Intake staff also has two components. One component is the number
of families under investigation or assessment at any given time and the other component is the
number of new referrals assigned to a worker each month. The standards for caseload limits
become progressively lower as the MSA implementation proceeds. When fully implemented in
Phase I of the MSA, Intake workers are to have caseloads of 12 families or less and 8 new
referrals or less per month. (Section II.E.19)
As with the Permanency caseloads, the Phase I standard for Intake caseloads is based on average
caseloads in an office. By December 2008, the goal is for 95 percent of all offices to have
average caseloads for Intake workers that meet the two-pronged standard (MSA Section II.E.19).
As of June 2008, 74 percent of all DYFS local offices were to have average caseloads for Intake
staff of 12 families or less and 8 or fewer new referrals per month (MSA Section II.E.13).
As displayed in Figure 2, the State has exceeded the June 2008 target for Intake staff. As of June
2008, 96 percent of the offices -- all but two -- had average caseloads for Intake staff at or below
the standard. The two offices not meeting this standard averaged 8 or fewer new assignments
but averaged 13 and 17 families per Intake worker, respectively. These data were independently
verified by the Monitor as part of the previously described process. Appendix B, Table B2
contains supporting details for each office.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 21
October 30, 2008
Mar-06 Dec-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Jun-08
Figure 2: NJ DCF/DYFS Intake Caseloads
Actual: 12 families & 8
new referrals
96%
Target: 12 families & 8
new referrals
74%
Actual: 15 families & 8
new referrals
73%
Target: 15 families & 8
new referrals
63%
Actual: 15 families & 10
new referrals
82%
Target: 15 families & 10
new referrals
58%
Actual: 15 families & 10
new referrals
65%
Target: 15 families & 10
new referrals
42%
Baseline: 15 families & 10
new referrals
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% of DYFS offices meeting standard
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
DCF/ DYFS fell short of the benchmark for the ratio of supervisors to workers, but the vast
majority of units appear to have the required level of supervision.
Supervision is a critical role in child welfare and the span of supervisor responsibility should be
limited to allow more effective individualized supervision. Therefore, the MSA also established
standards for supervisory ratios. By June 2008, 95 percent of all offices should be maintaining a
5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio (MSA Section II.E.17). Like the caseload standards, this standard
was to be phased in starting in December 2006.
As displayed in Figure 3, the State fell just short of the June 2008 target with 87 percent (41) of
the DYFS local offices having 5 to 1 supervisory ratios. Among the six offices not meeting the
standards, two offices had sufficient supervisory staff to achieve a 7 to 1 ratio. Another four
offices had supervisors leave their positions during the months of May and June and had
supervisory ratios of 6 to 1 on June 30, 2008. In all offices, Case Work Supervisors (SFSS1) are
available on an interim basis to provide supervision to the frontline staff. In follow-up with the
State, leadership reported that two of the four supervisory positions were filled in the first week
of August 2008. Appendix B, Table B3 contains supporting detail for each office, including the
number of supervisors at each level.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 22
October 30, 2008
Although performance on this standard declined from the previous reporting period, it is also
important to provide some context regarding DCF efforts to manage personnel issues, especially
supervisory vacancies. The State’s timeliness in filling vacancies needs also to be balanced with
selection of quality candidates within the constraints of a civil service system.
The State leadership reports that it generally takes 30 to 90 days to fill a supervisory vacancy.
The recruitment and replacement effort is dependent, in part, on the number and qualifications of
the personnel on the list assembled by the Civil Service Commission (formerly Department of
Personnel) from the individuals who have passed the civil service exam for supervisors. The
process is also dependent on the scheduling of interviews in the DYFS local offices and, most
importantly, whether a DYFS local office believes it has found the person who is a good fit with
the unit needing supervision and the local office organizational culture. If the list of supervisor
candidates is not up-to-date because of a pending supervisory exam or the local office interviews
available candidates and does not find a satisfactory individual, there may be a period of time
before there is a new pool of individuals to consider. Thus, there are many variables that may
impact the process, extending it in some instances to 90 days. Vacancies, particularly
supervisory vacancies are monitored by the DYFS Director and the DCF Director of
Administration in monthly phone calls with the Area Directors. In this way, impediments to
quickly filling vacancies are identified and remedies are considered.
As a result of the DYFS two-tiered supervisory structure that has both a frontline supervisory tier
filled by individuals classified as SFSS2 and a second tier referred to Case Work Supervisors
filled by individuals classified as SFSS1, DYFS caseworkers should not be unsupervised even
when there is an unfilled supervisory vacancy. However, even this arrangement provides
challenges as both supervisory positions are essential for the effective oversight of practice.
When a Case Work Supervisor has to provide direct supervision to a unit of five frontline case
managers, his or her other duties naturally suffer. In the Monitoring staff’s site visits, case
managers and supervisors expressed concern and frustration when the Case Work Supervisors
cannot devote the time for review and approval of the actions sent to them because they are
focused on directly supervising a unit.
Filling supervisory vacancies should have a sense of urgency, however DYFS local offices
should not feel pressured to hire a candidate that is not satisfactory to them solely to meet a time
requirement. The Monitor urges DCF to continue monitoring the process closely and seek
strategies to keep the elapsed time closer to 30 days rather than 90 days or more while not
sacrificing quality in hiring decisions.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 23
October 30, 2008
Jun- Jun- Dec- Dec- Jun- Jun07
07
07
07
08
08
Figure 3: NJ DCF/DYFS Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios
Actual: 1 to 5 (SFSS2 only)
87%
Target: 1 to 5 (SFSS2 only)
95%
Actual: 1 to 5 (SFSS2 only)
Target: 1 to 5 (SFSS2 only)
Actual: 1 to 5 (SFSS2 only)
Target: 1 to 5 (SFSS2 only)
70%
98%
90%
87%
85%
80%
90%
100%
% of DYFS offices meeting standard
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
Note: 2006 data not included because casework supervisors (SFSS1) and field supervisors (SFSS2)
were counted together at that time.
DCF/DYFS achieved the June 2008 caseload targets set for Adoption staff.
Adoption staff members are responsible for finding permanent homes for children who cannot
safely return to their parents by developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed
to finalize adoptions. The MSA requires the State to move away from generic permanency
caseloads and to ensure that children with a permanency goal of adoption are assigned to
designated Adoption workers (Section II.G). Not all DYFS local offices have adoption units.
As with the Permanency caseloads, by December 2008, the goal is for 95 percent of offices to
have average caseloads for Adoption staff of 15 or fewer children (MSA Section II.G.19). As of
June 2008, 95 percent of DYFS local offices are to have average caseloads for Adoption staff of
18 or fewer children with a subset of 60 percent of all offices achieving average caseloads for
Adoption staff of 15 or fewer children (MSA Section II.G.16).
As displayed in Figure 4, the State exceeded the Adoption caseload targets for June 2008 with 95
percent of the offices12 having average caseloads for Adoption staff at or below the standard of
18 children and 69 percent of the offices with average caseloads of 15 or fewer children. This
information was verified by the Monitor using the previously described approach for all
caseloads. Appendix B, Table B4 contains supporting details for each office.
12
There are total of 42 offices with Adoption units. In Newark, one office is devoted solely to adoption caseloads
for the entire city. In Cumberland and Gloucester, one of the two offices in each county houses the Adoption units as
well as intake and permanency units.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 24
October 30, 2008
Dec- Dec- Mar- Jun- Jun- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec- Jun- Jun- Jun- Jun06 06 07 07 07 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08
Figure 4: NJ DCF/DYFS Adoption Caseloads
69%
Actual: 15 children
60%
Target: 15 children
Actual: 18 children
95%
Target: 18 children
95%
71%
Actual: 15 children
35%
Target: 15 children
93%
Actual: 18 children
81%
Target: 18 children
90%
Actual: 18 children
60%
Target: 18 children
68%
Actual: 18 children
65%
Actual: 18 children
35%
Target: 18 children
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 25
October 30, 2008
B.
Training
The State has met all of its MSA obligations for training in this monitoring period as shown in
Table 4 below. This is particularly impressive given the enormity of the task underway at DCF
to train all staff on its new Case Practice Model by December 2008.
Table 4: Training Compliance with Modified Settlement Agreement
Total Number of
Number of Staff
Staff Trained
Type of Training
MSA Commitment
Trained January(Cumulative 2006June 2008
June 2008)
Pre-Service
In-Service
Concurrent
Planning
Case Practice
Model
Investigations &
Intake: New Staff
Supervisory:
New Supervisors
II.B.1. New caseworkers shall have 160
class hours, including Intake &
Investigations training; be enrolled
within two weeks of start date; complete
training and pass competency exams
before assuming a full caseload
II.B.2.c. Staff shall have taken a
minimum of 40 hours of in-service
training
II.B.2.d. Training on concurrent
planning; may be part of 40 hours inservice training by January 2008.
II.B.2.e. As of April 2007 and ongoing,
case carrying staff, supervisors and case
aides that had not been trained on the
new Case Practice Model shall receive
this training.
II.B.3.a. New staff conducting intake or
investigations shall have investigations
training and pass competency exams
before assuming cases.
II.B.4.b. As of December 2006 and
ongoing, newly promoted supervisors to
complete 40 hours of supervisory
training; pass competency exams within
3 months of assuming position.
II.G.9. As of December 2006 and
ongoing, adoption training for adoption
workers.
Source: DCF, Administrative Data, July 2008.
Adoption
114 (97%)
out of 117
staff hired received
DYFS Pre-Service
training or its
equivalent13
1381
520/4000 received 40+
hrs. by June 30.
Remainder to complete
by December 2008
3521
87
(100%)
3725
3595
(90%) plus an
additional 397 in
Immersion Sites, for a
total of 3992 trained
(99%).
127
(85%) by June 30; 23
were trained by August
2008 for a total of 150
(100%) trained.
35
(100%)
38/48 (79%)
10 to be trained in
October 2008
3795
839
214
313
13
Twenty-four of 27 BCWEP interns who were subsequently hired by DYFS received comparable training through
a combination of courses in their undergraduate social work program and in an abbreviated Worker Readiness
Training program. Three BCWEP workers deferred training while they completed their MSW degree; they are
scheduled for training beginning November 2008.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 26
October 30, 2008
Pre-Service Training
As reflected in Table 4, 114 of 117 (97%) new hires met the pre-service training requirements.
Ninety caseload carrying staff hired as Family Service Specialist Trainee (FSST) and Family
Service Specialist 2 (FSS 2) completed DYFS Pre-Service training and passed competency
exams after each module. Thirty-seven of the 117 new hires are BCWEP14 students, 10 of whom
completed DYFS pre-service training by August 2008. Twenty-four of the remaining 27
received comparable training through a combination of their coursework and the Department’s
Worker Readiness Training for BCWEP students. The three remaining are BCWEP students
who initially deferred hire to complete their MSW degree; they are scheduled to begin training in
November 2008. The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 22 percent of staff transcripts and
cross-referenced them with Human Resources data to determine that the workers who took the
training passed competency exams.15 All of the BCWEP students passed competency exams
conducted at the conclusion of their internship year. The Monitor verified that all newly
hired/promoted staff was enrolled within two weeks of their start dates.
The Department began to use a Trainee Caseload Readiness Assessment Tool in October 2007.
Since that time, DCF Central Office has regularly verified with Area Offices how many trainees
were assessed and met the assessment standards. If a trainee does not meet the standards, DCF
imposes remedial actions, including extending the period a trainee remains in the training unit,
and more intensive supervisory oversight. DCF reports that between February 15, 2008 and June
30, 2008 102 trainees were eligible to be assessed, 96 of whom were assessed by the end of the
monitoring period and met the assessment standards. DCF reports that the six trainees who were
not assessed in the monitoring period have subsequently been assessed using the tool and met the
standards.
In-Service Training
DCF is involved in a significant undertaking to train 4,000 staff members statewide on the new
Case Practice Model by December 2008. The training consists of two training modules,
Developing Trust Based Relationships with Children and Families and Making Visits Matter,
discussed in more detail starting on page 41 of this report. As reflected in Table 4, as of June
2008 DCF trained a total of 3,595 staff in this monitoring period, and staff passed the necessary
competency exams. These staff members were trained on Module 1, Developing Trust Based
Relationships. Overall, staff reports the training to be helpful and relevant to their day to day
practice. In focus groups, staff report excitement that in their work with families they began to
use skills they had left behind in social work school.
14
See footnote 7 for definition of BCWEP. The Department determined that the BCWEP curriculum in conjunction
with a 4 module Worker Readiness Training met DCF’s pre-service training requirements. The Monitor will review
this in more depth during the next period.
15
In verifying all training data, Monitor staff reviewed a random sample of rosters from a comprehensive list of
workers trained. Sample size for each review varied based on the total number of workers trained.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 27
October 30, 2008
An additional 397 staff members completed intensive “immersion” training as discussed on page
42. Over the next six months, DCF will train all staff on Module 2, Making Visits Matter.
Concurrent Planning Training
Rutgers University School of Social Work continues to take the lead in training DYFS staff on
Concurrent Planning, the practice of simultaneously planning for more than one permanency
outcome for a child in care. As reflected in Table 4, a total of 87 additional DYFS staff was
trained in Concurrent Planning in this monitoring period. The Monitor randomly selected and
cross-referenced 50 percent of staff transcripts with Human Resource data to verify that the State
complied with the MSA (Section II.B.2.d).
During the past six months DCF has focused on aligning the message staff receive from its Case
Practice Model trainers and its team of concurrent planning trainers. The Rutgers trainers have
taken the first two modules of CWPPG’s Case Practice Model training in order to be better able
to integrate its principles and values into the Concurrent Planning training.
Investigations Training
One hundred twenty-seven out of a total of 150 new investigators completed First Responders
training in this monitoring period and passed competency exams (see Table 4). Three of these
new investigators were hired at the end of the last monitoring period but were trained during the
past six months. Twenty-three new investigators were scheduled to begin training by August
2008. The Monitor reviewed 37 percent of First Responders training rosters for this monitoring
period and cross referenced them with Human Resource records to determine that the State
complied with the MSA (Section II.B.3.a).
Supervisory Training
The State trained 35 new supervisors between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008. Twelve of
these supervisors were appointed during the previous monitoring period and trained during the
past six months. A total of 31 supervisors were appointed during the monitoring period.
Twenty-three supervisors were trained during the past six months. Eight additional supervisors
were scheduled to be trained in July 2008 and complete it within the required six-month time
frame. The State provided the Monitor with a Human Resources roster that includes promotion
and training dates. The Monitor randomly selected and cross-referenced 48 percent of
supervisor’s transcripts with the Human Resources rosters and concluded that the State complied
with the MSA (Section II.B.4.b). The State reports and, after analysis, the Monitor confirms that
it is meeting its obligation to train all newly appointed supervisors within six months of their
appointment.
In this monitoring period, DYFS created a more rigorous means of identifying supervisors who
need to improve or strengthen their supervisory skills. During the Supervisory Training process
Child Welfare Training Academy (CWTA) trainers now report any staff readiness issues directly
to the Assistant Area Director (AAD). The AAD in turn ensures that the supervisor’s local
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 28
October 30, 2008
office manager and casework supervisor work directly with the supervisor on areas of weakness.
Results of all competency exams are now also shared with the AADs, creating an added
incentive for supervisors to perform well on competency exams.
New Adoption Worker Training
As shown in Table 4, the State reports that 38 of a total of 48 new adoption workers were trained
between January 1, 2008 and June 30, 2008. Four of these new adoption workers are recent
hires. These four new adoption workers together with six more workers designated as adoption
workers in June are scheduled for new adoption worker training in October 2008. The Monitor
randomly selected and cross-referenced 55 percent of staff transcripts with Human Resources
records and concluded that the State complied with the MSA (Section II.G.9).
C.
The Statewide Central Registry and Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)
The Statewide Central Registry (SCR)
One of the most important child protective services functions of a public child welfare agency is
to receive and to promptly and appropriately respond to reports of suspected child abuse or
neglect. Commonly referred to as a State’s child abuse and neglect hotline, the State Central
Registry (SCR) is the unit within New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) that
is responsible for receiving and responding to reports of child abuse and neglect. The SCR is a
24 hour-7 day per week operation. With every call, decisions are made which potentially affect
the safety, well-being and chance for a stable, permanent future for a child and his or her family.
The manner, speed and clarity with which the SCR receives, screens and acts on calls to its
hotline greatly influences how the community interacts with and perceives the State’s overall
child protection performance.
In July 2008, the Monitor issued an independent assessment of the SCR. The Monitor was
joined in the assessment by representatives of the New Jersey Office of the Child Advocate
(OCA) and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Quality Analysis and Information
unit.
The assessment was designed to answer the following three questions:
1. Are SCR screening decisions appropriate?
2. Is SCR screening documentation accurate and sufficiently complete to enable the case
managers in the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) field offices to respond
appropriately?
3. Is complete and accurate information reaching the DYFS field office staff in a timely
manner?
The assessment was the second formal assessment completed on New Jersey’s SCR. In 2005,
shortly after the SCR was created, the independent Child Welfare Panel created by the original
Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey Settlement Agreement reviewed SCR operations.16 In
16
New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, Period I Monitoring Report, March 2005 and Period II Monitoring Report,
October 2005.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 29
October 30, 2008
contrast to 2005 review, which found multiple policy, management and operational problems
within the SCR, the July 2008 review found the SCR operations to be well managed,
professional and appropriately focused on the timeliness and the quality of the response to the
public’s reports of child maltreatment.
Much has been accomplished in the past three years. Overall, the Monitor’s assessment found
that:
•
SCR decision-making is sound and the vast majority of screening decisions are
appropriate. The Study Team concurred with the SCR call classification in 92 percent of
the calls reviewed and with the assigned response priority for 93 percent of the calls.
After listening to tape recordings of calls and reviewing written documentation, the
number of cases in which the Study Team came to a different conclusion than the SCR
was small. The findings however suggest several areas in which additional policy
guidance and clarification is needed, particularly with respect to handling calls alleging
maltreatment in institutions which require a referral to the Institutional Abuse
Investigations Unit (IAIU) and for those reports that need a child welfare assessment, not
an investigation, but in a urgent time frame.
•
For the vast majority of calls, screeners collect the information that DYFS case
managers need in order to appropriately investigate complaints and assess families in
need of services, although in some cases the documentation forwarded to the field
offices needs to be more accurate and complete. Over 80 percent of the NJ SPIRIT
Screening Summaries contained sufficient information to support the screening and
priority decisions.
•
The SCR completes its work in a timely fashion and the vast majority of reports or
referrals reach the field within three hours of a call to the SCR. Eighty (80) percent of
the Child Protective Services (CPS) reports and Child Welfare Services (CWS) referrals
were sent to the field offices within 3 hours of the conclusion of the call.
•
The majority of calls were handled thoroughly and professionally by SCR screeners.
The SCR has established protocols for training and supervising its workers and has
developed processes for continuous quality assurance. These are far more developed and
effective than were evident in 2005, although there is still room for continued
improvement.
•
In addition to using the SCR to receive and process reports of maltreatment and
requests for child welfare services, the SCR call and data tracking system is currently
used to keep track of after hours employees (SPRU workers) and their schedules. This
use of SCR staff time and resources for administrative purposes which are not integral to
the functions of the SCR should be reconsidered.
In addition to the findings, the report included multiple recommendations regarding policy,
operations and staff development to further strengthen the operations of the SCR. DCF has
reviewed the report’s recommendations and shared its plans to implement the recommended
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 30
October 30, 2008
quality improvement strategies with the Monitor. The plans include updating the policy manual,
greater training and supervision of part-time staff, revised review protocol of the calls that do not
appear to need a field response, and enhanced Screener evaluation and certification process. The
Monitor will continue to follow-up with DCF’s implementation.
A complete copy of the report is available on CSSP’s website, www.cssp.org.
The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)
The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of
abuse and neglect in settings including correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment
facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or child care
centers that are licensed or should be licensed, Resource Family homes and registered family day
care homes.17 In the first half of 2008, IAIU received 1,526 referrals. Figure 5 below provides
the source of referrals for January through June 2008.
Figure 5: IAIU Referral Source
January 1 - June 30, 2008
N=1,526 Referrals
Legal & Court, 9, 1%
Facility, 174, 11%
Relative, 35, 2%
Parent, 222, 15%
Police, 76, 5%
Other, 88, 6%
Health, 107, 7%
School, 378, 25%
Other Gov't Agency, 183,
12%
Friend/
Neighbor/
Community
7%
Self, 18, 1%
Anonymous, 127, 8%
Source: DCF Administrative Data
17
DCF Policy III Support Operations Manual, E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, Section 100.6 Key Definitions,
August 2008 and Institution as defined by N.J.S.A. 9:6-8:21g.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 31
October 30, 2008
The purpose of IAIU’s investigative effort is to determine whether children have been abused or
neglected18 and to ensure their safety by requiring corrective actions to eliminate the risk of
future harm.
To better understand the work of IAIU, the Monitor interviewed a cross-section of IAIU staff.
Through these interviews, the Monitor gathered information to verify the reported caseloads and
investigation timeliness. In addition, the Monitor explored IAIU staff perspectives on
accomplishments and challenges in their work.
IAIU investigation timeliness met the established standard
By June 30, 2007, and continuing thereafter, IAIU was expected to complete 80 percent of its
investigations within 60 days of referral (MSA Section II.I.3.) DCF manages and tracks IAIU
performance daily, calculating the proportion of investigations open 60 days or more statewide
and within regional offices. This proportion varies on a day-to-day basis. However, on six
separate days in the reporting period (the last date in each month, January –June 2008), the daily
statistics supplied by DCF indicate that 84 percent to 88 percent of all IAIU investigations were
open less than 60 days. The statewide summaries for these dates are provided in Table 5. The
Monitor has previously verified this information by reviewing a portion of investigations.19 No
additional verification was completed this period because the Office of the Child Advocate has
been conducting an in-depth review of IAIU operations and is expected to release its report in
October 2008.
The MSA does not make any distinctions about the type of investigations IAIU conducts based
on the allegation or location of the alleged abuse. The timeliness standard applies to all IAIU
investigations. However, the Monitor’s fundamental concern is the safety and well-being of the
children who are in DCF custody (and part of the class of children to whom the MSA applies).
Therefore, in reviewing IAUI performance, it is important to separately consider investigations
of maltreatment in foster care settings – resource homes and congregate care facilities. Table 5
displays IAIU’s overall performance for the dates cited as well as the timeliness of investigations
in foster homes and congregate care facilities.
In a focus group of a cross section of IAIU staff, several challenges to completing investigations
within 60 days were identified. When a case involves law enforcement and local prosecution,
IAIU investigators try to conduct joint interviews but are sometimes asked to wait until law
enforcement has completed their work. If a child received medical attention in a hospital
emergency room as a result of the alleged abuse, the investigators reported that it takes more
time to identify and contact the emergency room personnel who treated the child and obtain
associated medical records. Investigators may also find it difficult to interview all involved staff
in one trip to a congregate care facility because the staff may work different shifts and have
different days off. This challenge is reportedly exacerbated by the large geographic area each
investigator covers. Focus group participants also reported that obtaining information about past
18
Abuse and neglect are defined by statute at N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21c.
See Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period III Monitoring Report for Charlie
and Nadine H. v. Corzine, July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of
Social Policy. April 16, 2008.
19
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 32
October 30, 2008
allegations in a facility or resource home can be time consuming and challenging. Scheduling
and conducting exit conferences with administrators and resource families, required before
closing an investigation even if there are no concerns, can also delay the completion of an
investigation. NJ SPIRIT implementation and residential facilities’ cooperation help to mitigate
some of these challenges. Focus group participants noted that information available in NJ
SPIRIT helps with gathering history in a more timely way. In addition, residential facilities
generally help facilitate investigations because they need the results quickly in order to make
decisions about whether personnel actions are necessary.
Table 5: IAIU Investigative Timeliness:
Percent of Investigations Pending Less Than 60 days
As recorded for the last date of each month, January - June 2008
Date
All Investigations
pending less than
60 days
Investigations in congregate
care and resource homes
pending less than 60 days
January 31, 2008
84%
73%
February 29, 2008
86%
84%
March 31, 2008
84%
80%
April 30, 2008
86%
82%
May 31, 2008
88%
80%
June 30, 2008
85%
86%
Source: Department of Children and Families, Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit,
Daily Workflow Statistics
DCF achieved the June 2008 caseload targets set for IAIU Investigation staff.
By June 2008, the goal is for 95 percent of IAIU investigators to have no more than 8 new cases
per month and 12 open cases at a time. (MSA Section II.I.5). According to data supplied by the
State, 45 of the 47 investigators (96%) had caseload sizes in compliance with the standard on
June 30, 2008. Two investigators had slightly larger than required caseloads. One investigator
had 10 new cases assigned during the month and the other had 9 new cases. But each had 12 or
fewer open cases at the end of the month. See Appendix B, Table B6 for more detail.
These lower caseloads appear to be holding. In the previously referenced focus group with a
cross section of IAIU staff in August 2008, the staff report that the individual caseloads ranged
from four to ten open investigations on the day of the focus group.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 33
October 30, 2008
DCF is conducting a review of IAIU’s substantiation rate of maltreatment in care to better
understand current performance in light of historical trends.
According to data supplied by IAIU, about 2 percent of the investigations in congregate care and
family foster care homes had substantiated the allegations of maltreatment in calendar year 2007.
This appears to have declined since calendar year 2005 and the drop has led to public questions
about IAIU investigations. DCF reports that there may be several possibilities for historical
differences including different recording methodologies employed over the years. To better
understand the current performance in light of past performance, DCF reports that it is currently
attempting to create a comparable history from 2001 through 2007 and to look at any patterns
that suggest reasons for the decline. The Monitor will continue to follow-up with DCF regarding
the analysis and its results.
A comparable history is a useful step in assessing current performance but it is not the only step
because historical performance may well be affected by different management and investigative
philosophies, skill levels, and training. Continual assessment of the current quality,
thoroughness, and decisions made during the investigations is more important. This assessment
should be at both the investigator level and at the unit level. It should include analyzing patterns
of complaints (referrals) and substantiations to determine if there are repeated issues that do not
appear to be adequately addressed in institutional investigations.
IAIU needs to systematically analyze and address patterns to assess its own performance.
As noted above, identifying patterns among complaints and substantiations can help IAIU assess
the effectiveness of its investigations as well as possibly help DYFS case managers prevent
maltreatment in care. IAIU has several practices in place to identify patterns but it is not clear
whether they add up to an effective overall approach to identify patterns among institutions or
providers that would enable licensing and DYFS local offices initiate corrective actions. Focus
group participants suggested that the monthly regional office process of reviewing the status of
open investigations (referred to as “compstat”) can informally reveal patterns. Participants also
stated that investigations include a search of NJ SPIRIT to obtain history of a facility or home
and they confer with their counter parts in the Office of Licensing (OOL.) Another source for
analysis is the Corrective Action Database. It reportedly can produce the number of times a
facility or home may have previously had a corrective action or there is the same perpetrator for
multiple incidents.
In order to use the information obtained by IAIU to strengthen oversight of caregivers, the
Department reports that they have begun piloting a draft protocol to systematically identify
patterns among complaints in congregate care settings. During the next reporting period, the
Monitor will explore further with IAIU leadership their approach to identifying patterns among
complaints and substantiated reports. In addition, IAIU investigations often make
recommendations for strengthened policies or training or supervision even if the complaint is not
substantiated. These recommendations may also reveal patterns that suggest broader actions
within DCF or the provider community.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 34
October 30, 2008
IAIU has a structure for providing “feedback” to the Office of Licensing and DYFS local
offices.
According to policy and observed practice20, the SCR provides the first important
communication link among IAIU, the Office of Licensing, and the DYFS local offices when
there is an allegation of abuse of a child in custody in a placement setting. If a report “concerns
a facility regulated by the Department of Children and Families’ Office of Licensing (OOL),
SCR makes a Secondary Assignment to OOL in NJ SPIRIT as a courtesy notification.”21 In
addition, policy requires the SCR to electronically notify “identified offices within DYFS, DCF,
DHS, and other entities, based on the type of facility, program, or provider and/or the
nature/severity of the presenting allegation.”22 If the allegation involves a resource home, the
SCR suspends the resource home, preventing any DYFS local office from making a new
placement to the resource until the investigation and the suspension is removed.23 Suspensions
can only be lifted by the assigned Resource Family Support Worker if the action is supported by
both IAIU findings and OOL recommendations.24
IAIU policy lays out clear steps for initial and ongoing communication with OOL and Local
offices once an investigation is assigned that appears to have a sufficient number of “check
points” to keep DYFS local offices informed of the issues and findings. For example:
•
When assigned an investigation, IAIU investigators are required to confirm that SCR has
notified the applicable offices and entities and may seek to conduct the investigation
jointly with OOL and/or the DYFS local office Resource Family Support Worker.25
•
When an allegation involves a Resource Family, IAIU investigators are to obtain
information from DYFS local office personnel at the beginning of the investigation.26
Investigators and supervisors participating in a focus group generally reported that the
DYFS local offices do know about the allegations when they call although this appeared
to vary somewhat among regions.
•
At the end of an investigation, IAIU is to conduct an exit interview with the Resource
Family home Supervisor.27
•
IAIU investigators are responsible for assessing the safety and protection of each child in
a Resource Family home and providing an initial report with recommendations to OOL,
the Resource Family Supervisor Unit and each Local office that supervises a child in the
20
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Washington, DC.
July 30, 2008.
21
See Section III.E.300.3 in the DYFS Manual
22
See Section III.E.300.12 in the DYFS Manual
23
See Section III.E.300.13 in the DYFS Manual
24
See Section III.E.702.2
25
See Section III.E.402.5
26
See Section III.E.403.1
27
See Section III.E.403.2
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 35
October 30, 2008
home under investigation.28 Similar communication is taken for children in congregate
care settings.
The Monitor has not yet assessed the strength of this process and the consistency of its
implementation to determine if DYFS local offices actually receive sufficient information to
guide response to potential child trauma, placement decision making, and appropriate follow-up
with Resource Family homes. IAIU leadership report convening monthly meetings of systems
partners to discuss issues. These meetings are to include representatives of OOL and the central
office Foster Care and Resource Development units.
IAIU staff report strengthening investigative quality but believe they can improve further with
more skill development.
As reported above, the caseloads in IAIU meet the standards set by the MSA. Lower caseloads
are expected to improve timeliness and investigation quality. The Office of Child Advocate is
currently completing a review of IAIU operations and investigative quality. Because the OCA
findings were not yet published as this report was being prepared, the Monitor sought to
understand from IAIU staff what they believed they were doing well and where they thought
IAIU needed improvement. The cross section of investigators and supervisors in the focus group
reported that the lower caseloads and improved internal policy have strengthened their
investigative approach. They cited improved evidence collection to support findings as one of
the most notable improvements in investigative quality. One of their most important tasks is to
determine the immediate safety of a child and what remedial actions are needed to ensure safety
at the outset of an investigation and they reported their judgment in these situations is a strength
of their work. Such remedial action may include recommending removal of the child from the
setting or the reassignment of the alleged perpetrator. IAIU leadership concurred with the staff
self-assessment stating that investigators are getting more signed testimony and corroborating
documentation than they had in the past. The leadership also reported that supervisory
conferencing is stronger now with supervisors providing more investigation-specific direction
and shared decision making. They also see improved communication with their partners,
especially OOL and law enforcement.
The participants were also very candid about the areas of needed improvement. They reported
their interviewing skills and documentation skills need more development to further enhance
their ability to collect and corroborate evidence and support the findings with more
comprehensive and specific detail. Here again, IAIU leadership concurred and noted that efforts
to create IAIU-specific training in the past stalled with the structural transitions in DCF and
emerging priorities in the Department since the inception of the Training Academy. DCF has
expressed a commitment to developing IAIU-specific training and possible cross-training with
law enforcement.
Skill development, therefore, is an area that needs more attention in IAIU. The type of skill
development, however, may require some review to ensure consistency with current agency
values and the Case Practice Model. For example, IAIU staff and leadership report receiving the
28
See Section III.E.404.1
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 36
October 30, 2008
First Responders Training but they believe IAIU investigators need more focus on forensic
interviewing rather than on interviewing skills designed to build engagement. They suggest the
Case Practice Model would not be pertinent to their work. As part of determining the best
approach to skill development in IAIU, the Case Practice Model training should not be
dismissed. The Monitor suggests IAIU identify investigators whose work is considered to be
high quality and train others on the skills these workers employ to achieve quality performance.
IAIU reports improvements to the corrective action process.
An IAIU investigation may result in recommendations for improvement and facilities or resource
homes may be asked to take corrective action even when a complaint is not substantiated. In
January 2008, IAIU instituted a change in how corrective actions are developed. Previously, the
investigators in consultation with their supervisors would inform the facility/home as to what
corrective action should be taken. The Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) unit was
responsible for follow-up and obtaining proof that the corrective action was taken. Since
January, the facilities/homes are informed of the investigation findings and recommendations
and requested to respond with a corrective action plan. The CQI unit now reviews the plan and
approves it or requests revisions from the institution/home. Once the corrective action plan is
approved, CQI continues to follow-up until the plan is successfully completed. As of midSeptember 2008, the CQI unit reported oversight of 38 outstanding Corrective Actions from the
January-June 2008 period. During the next reporting period the Monitor will follow-up with
IAIU as to the effectiveness of this process and the responsiveness of the providers.
D.
Accountability through the Production and Use of Accurate Data
Continuing MSA requirements related to data during this monitoring period include:
•
•
•
•
The distribution of regular, accurate reports from Safe Measures.
The production of caseload reporting that tracks actual caseloads by office and type
of worker and for permanency and adoption workers that tracks children as well as
families.
The maintenance of an accurate worker roster.
Posting data on the DCF website.
Each of these is discussed separately below.
DCF has continued to address problems encountered with NJ SPIRIT in order to achieve the
systems full potential.
Considerable work has occurred and continues to complete the successful implementation of NJ
SPIRIT. However, in almost any discussion with internal and external stakeholders, NJ
SPIRIT’s strengths and challenges are identified. Several themes emerge. The first theme
concerns worker competency and comfort in navigating NJ SPIRIT as well as staff impatience
around the resolution of system issues. As anticipated, increasing the comfort level of field staff
in using NJ SPIRIT is a high priority. As reported in the last Monitoring Report, deployment of
NJ SPIRIT was met with heightened anxiety in DCF central office and DYFS Local offices and
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 37
October 30, 2008
the benefits of NJ SPIRIT had yet to be fully realized by the field. DCF has continued to provide
support to staff as they learn to use the system and has accelerated systems work to make sure
SPIRIT can produce functionality in all areas.
In December 2007, to position itself better for the next stages of NJ SPIRIT, DCF restructured,
combining several special NJ SPIRIT, technology and data analysis units into a single unit
responsible for information technology (IT) and reporting for all of DCF. The single unit has
five teams: the help desk, the application development group, the infrastructure unit, the
application maintenance unit and the data analysis and reporting unit. DCF has approximately
90 staff employed in the IT and Reporting Unit. During this monitoring period, DCF hired an IT
Help Desk manager and more than doubled the number of state staff assigned to the Help Desk
to include 10 analysts and 1 supervisor.
Workers who experience difficulties with NJ SPIRIT typically call the Central Office “Help
Desk.” Between January and June 2008, the Help Desk received 6,837 requests for help or
“tickets.” The Help Desk resolved 50 percent of those “tickets” within 1 workday, 75 percent
within 7 workdays and the remaining 25 percent in excess of 7 workdays. Response time has
been cut by more than half from the prior monitoring period, when tickets were closed in an
average of 14 workdays
The greatest frustration expressed to the Monitor by field staff during site visits was the cessation
of the Super Users and the in-office NJ SPIRIT help. Case managers, supervisors and
administrators alike felt the Help Desk, although trying to be helpful, was frequently incapable of
addressing their immediate needs. Staff reported that many times “tickets” go unresolved for
weeks and that by the time the Help Desk gets back to them they had either figured out the
problem or work around the problem in order to effectively use NJ SPIRIT. Additionally, DYFS
local office field staff was frustrated by the feedback and communication loop from the Help
Desk back to the DYFS local offices. Many times DYFS local office field staff learns informally
that others are experiencing the same difficulties; yet they feel that this information is not
aggregated and regularly distributed to them to know that the difficulties they are experiencing
are statewide problems.
The second theme is a redundancy in day to day operations. When released, NJ SPIRIT was
intended to streamline many of the daily operations of DYFS local offices. However, there seem
to be a number of activities in which the work has not been streamlined and staff has to conduct
multiple steps to process a request or accomplish a particular task. For example, the Monitor
heard throughout the state about requests for payments through DYFS local office Bank
Accounts (LOBAs). The initiation and payment for many services occurs with the filing of a
LOBA. A case manager must enter the LOBA information into NJ SPIRIT and then send it
electronically to a supervisor for approval. It was anticipated that this would be the end of the
process and that the supervisor could electronically approve and initiate the payment. In reality,
the case manager must also print the LOBA and get supervisory approval by handwritten
signature prior to submitting the LOBA in hard copy to clerical staff for payment.29
29
DCF reports that it has identified a solution to this problem which will automate the approvals and is determining
how soon it can be implemented.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 38
October 30, 2008
The third concern is the inaccuracy of some data in the system which impacts the timeliness and
accuracy of the reports generated by NJ SPIRIT for use by DCF Central Office and DYFS Area
Directors and local office management. This problem has also caused delay in routinely
producing management and performance data for public accountability and for MSA monitoring.
During this monitoring period, the Monitor continued to experience difficulty in obtaining
accurate and timely data to verify achievement in meeting the outcomes from the MSA despite
the commitment of much time and effort by DCF staff. DCF continues to use manual counts for
certain data elements including data on youth placed in shelters and on health care case
management for children in care, although there are plans to transition these to NJ SPIRIT.
Additionally, some staff continues to distrust the accuracy of the reports produced by NJ SPIRIT.
For example Resource Family units do not routinely rely on the NJ SPIRIT matching system to
facilitate placements in Resource Family homes. Units across the State expressed that they do
not believe that NJ SPIRIT is up-to-date about placements and thus staff continues to use manual
tracking systems to find open placements for children coming into care.
DCF partially met its obligation to report from Safe Measures.
DCF has continued to work to expand the scope of the analysis that Safe Measures provides.
Safe Measures now contains elements regarding caseloads, investigations and assessments,
permanency practice, as well as adoption. The State reports that many staff regained their
comfort level with Safe Measures during this monitoring period.
During site visits, the Monitor heard concerns about the accuracy of the information displayed by
Safe Measures. Case managers and supervisors complained about phantom cases showing on
their Safe Measures caseloads and their inability to correct inaccurate information in Safe
Measures. DCF is working hard to correct these problems, many of which are related to old data
which was not converted correctly into NJ SPIRIT. Most of the large scale conversion issues
have been resolved and attention is increasingly turning to developing supports for field staff to
improve their skills and knowledge so that data are appropriately entered and retrievable from NJ
SPIRIT.
Caseload reporting tracks actual caseloads by office and type of worker.
DCF has been able to generate and provide data to the Monitor with regard to caseloads by office
and by type of worker. These data are not, however, provided with regularity and are not yet
routinely updated on the DCF website. The Department has committed to updating caseload data
on the DCF website quarterly.
DCF maintains an accurate worker roster.
NJ SPIRIT is able to create and track an accurate worker roster. This roster is the foundation for
the report used by the Monitor and DCF to assess compliance with MSA caseload requirements.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 39
October 30, 2008
DCF posts data on its website.
DCF posts data on a variety of indicators on its website. The Monitor has requested from DCF a
data plan that lays out a predictable schedule of when data will be received by the Monitor and
posted to the website as no consistent pattern currently exists.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 40
October 30, 2008
V.
CHANGING PRACTICE TO SUPPORT CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES
A.
Implementing the New Case Practice Model
The Monitor’s previous two reports describe in detail DCF’s plan to implement the Case Practice
Model. It includes six core elements: (1) Leadership; (2) Statewide Readiness; Immersion; (3)
Service Development; (5) Focus on the Fundamentals and (6) Enhanced Planning between
DYFS and DCBHS. Over the past six months DCF has continued its focus on statewide
readiness by embarking on a massive statewide training process. In addition to training staff
statewide, there has been an intensive, concentrated training and coaching process in select field
offices known as “Immersion Sites.”
Statewide Readiness Strategy: Training on the new Case Practice Model
DCF and its partners, the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG) and the New
Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program (the Partnership), 30 have joined forces to train
DCF’s entire workforce of approximately 4,000 on the new Case Practice Model.
By December 2008, DCF workers statewide will have attended two modules of training,
Developing Trust Based Relationships with Children and Families31 and Making Visits Matter.
Making Visits Matter builds on the first Module, and adds topics such as:
•
•
•
•
•
Worker Roles in Visiting Across a Family’s Involvement in the Foster Care System
Building a Working Agreement
Furthering the Working Agreement based on Safety and Stability
Interviewing Children
Tracking and Adjusting in work with Families
These training modules are intended to satisfy the Department’s commitment of 40 hours of InService training in 2008 for all case carrying workers and supervisors (MSA Section II.B.2.c).
As of June 2008, DCF trained a total of 3,795 staff on Developing Trust Based Relationships and
is well positioned to complete training on the second module, Making Visits Matter, by the target
date of December 2008.
Staff in the field report that overall the Case Practice Model training is helpful and relevant to
their work. They talk about using new skills to better engage and work with, rather than for,
families. Monitor staff attended Making Visits Matter training and was encouraged both by the
content and by the energy and commitment to practice change exhibited by staff and trainers
alike.
30
The New Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program is a collaboration of New Jersey social work schools led
by Rutgers University School of Social Work.
31
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period III Monitoring Report for Charlie and
Nadine H. v. Corzine, July 1 – December 31, 2007. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Social Policy, April
16, 2008, p. 33.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 41
October 30, 2008
DCF continues to link training and support for good practice through its Case Practice Model
Technical Assistance Group. This group consists of 12 Assistant Area Directors (each deployed
locally by area) and four DYFS technical assistance staff called Case Practice Implementation
Specialists. This group, charged with the task of providing staff with the knowledge and means
to apply their learning to the field, have developed “tool kits” that bring alive the day to day
work of case practice change. One tool, “Developing a Strategic Interview Plan” guides workers
in preparing for interviews with families. Another, “Case Presentation and Consultation Format”
assists workers with tips on how to present a case to other staff and/or supervisors. The kit is
primarily used as a supervisory tool, but it is being used more widely by all levels of staff. The
Assistant Area Directors track the use of these tools monthly, and report progress to the DYFS
Director.
The Monitor’s visits to DYFS local offices reveal healthy signs that the practice change
envisioned by the new Case Practice is taking hold. While some staff remains anxious about the
time it takes to work differently with families, there is clearly a beginning shift in the way
workers see their roles. Some intake workers speak of approaching families with more respect
and empathy with the result of improved ability to work with families to keep children safe.
Permanency workers report new and creative ways to use flexible funds to assist families facing
obstacles to reunification. One office has taken a creative approach to infusing the values of the
Case Practice Model throughout the office by involving a wide spectrum of staff in preparations
for a Family Team Meeting. The Monitor applauds these innovations and encourages sharing of
creative solutions and successes resulting from these shifts in practice.
Immersion Sites
DCF selected four sites (“Immersion Sites”) in which to develop and refine new family
engagement skills and practices through intensive training, coaching, and partnering with
families. The first four DYFS local offices are Bergen Central, Burlington East, Gloucester
West and Mercer North. During the past six months staff at these sites continued to receive
CWPPG’s training on Developing Strength Based, Individualized Child and Family Practice. A
total of 397 staff were trained in these first four Immersion Sites, utilizing a rigorous schedule of
training, coaching and mentoring provided by DCF and CWPPG. DCF plans to complete the
immersion process in these four sites by October 2008.
DCF has determined that the next round of Immersion Sites will involve seven new sites, three
new “sister” offices in the same areas as in Round One, and four new offices located in other
areas. As in Round One, these seven Immersion Sites will receive alternating weeks of
immersion training, coaching and mentoring, including a combination of classroom teaching and
modeling of techniques, and opportunities to actually work with families under the supervision
of trainers and coaches. DCF plans to complete the immersion process in the three sister sites in
April 2009 and in the four new sites by July 2009. At that time another set of offices will begin
to undergo immersion training.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 42
October 30, 2008
A key component to the immersion model is the “train the trainer” approach. Currently CWPPG
is taking the lead on training and coaching staff in the immersion zones. Going forward, DCF
will need to build its own capacity to train and coach new and existing staff. As the number of
Immersion Sites expands, planning for local capacity to train and coach staff will become
increasingly important. With the support of Casey Family Programs, DCF is working with
CWPPG and the Partnership to develop plans to increase capacity statewide that involve DCF
staff and New Jersey based training providers.
As offices wait their turn to receive immersion support, DCF is developing ways to integrate
Case Practice Model training into day to day practice statewide. To underscore the message of
widespread practice change, DCF plans to expand its internal communications strategy,
highlighting the core elements of the Case Practice Model for all staff.
Recommendations for Additional Improvement
The Monitor is encouraged by the progress New Jersey has made toward implementing its Case
Practice Model. However, additional capacity for staff support may be necessary; four centrally
located Case Practice Implementation Specialists may not be sufficient as the immersion process
unfolds statewide. Similarly, additional DYFS local office staff needs to be exclusively
dedicated to the effort. The Monitor urges and DCF has plans to develop coaching and training
capacity in each county, rather than by area. The Monitor will evaluate DCF’s plans to expand
capacity and will be looking to ensure that quality remains high.
In addition, to achieve its goals, the values and principles of the new Case Practice model need to
be disseminated across the DCF divisions. The Monitor urges DCF to provide non case-carrying
staff such as on-site nurses, SCR and IAIU staff with training on the new Case Practice Model.
Finally all levels of staff across the state report that implementing the new Case Practice Model
is difficult when partner providers and other stakeholders do not fully understand the change in
practice in which New Jersey is engaged. It will be important to develop and carry out plans to
ensure that other stakeholders such as judges, attorneys and service providers understand and are
trained on the new Case Practice Model so that families can benefit from an integrated service
delivery system operating within the same values and practice framework.
B.
Concurrent Planning Practice
DCF continues to improve and expand Concurrent Planning Practice
Concurrent planning is a concept employed by jurisdictions throughout the country in which
workers assist children in out-of-home placement to reunify with their family of origin safely and
quickly, while simultaneously pursing alternative permanent placements should reunification
efforts fail. Previous Monitoring Reports have described DYFS’s development and
implementation of its Concurrent Planning “Enhanced Review” Model, a MSA commitment the
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 43
October 30, 2008
state began to implement in 2006.32 Originally tested in 10 DYFS local offices, the practice
expanded to16 additional DYFS local offices this monitoring period. Work continues to have
the concurrent planning practice be consistent and reinforced by the new Case Practice Model.
New Jersey has taken steps to integrate the two in training and practice. DCF plans to include
the importance of concurrent planning practice into its DCF-wide communications strategy
around the new Case Practice Model in order to broaden the message to all staff and its provider
partners. It is a clear message that Concurrent Planning means more than seeking a potential
adoptive home for a child, and more than meeting state or federal timelines for permanency. It
reminds staff that Concurrent Planning is part of a larger practice framework embodied by the
values and principles of the Case Practice Model.
In concurrent planning demonstration sites, DCF continues to make progress in holding
regular 5 and 10 month reviews.
According to DCF, and as confirmed by site visits, DYFS local offices are able to conduct timely
5 and 10 month reviews of cases (with the exception of a few offices). In the 10 original
demonstration sites, data for this monitoring period show that on average 92 percent of cases had
timely 5 month reviews and 82 percent had timely 10 month reviews. The 16 DYFS local
offices that recently began implementing concurrent planning are, for the most part, performing
similarly to the 10 original demonstration offices with data showing that on average 81 percent
of cases had timely 5 month reviews and 82 percent had timely 10 month reviews. It is notable
that many cases are not routinely transferred to adoption workers within 5 business days per
MSA Section II.G.2.c. On average 58 percent of cases were transferred to an adoption worker
within 5 days in the 10 original sites, and 51 percent of cases were timely transferred to an
adoption worker in the 16 new sites.
Under the MSA, DCF is required to issue reports based on the adoption process tracking system
(Section II.G.15). This system tracks important moments in concurrent planning—the 5 month
review, 10 month review, transfer to the adoption worker, filings for the termination of
parental rights petition, court orders terminating parental rights, appeals of terminations,
adoption placements, and adoption finalizations. DCF only provided the monitor with three of
these data points (5 month review, 10 month reviews, and transfer to the adoption worker). The
Monitor expects to receive reports including all the required elements.
C.
Increasing Services to Families
Differential Response and Prevention Efforts
DCF has committed to developing individualized service plans built from a quality assessment of
family and child strengths and needs (Section II.A.2.e). Over the last year, DCF expanded its
community-based resources to respond to voluntary requests for services from families
experiencing a current or developing need that does not pose a safety threat to the children. This
32
For more information, see Progress of New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period II Monitoring
Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine, January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for
the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 44
October 30, 2008
alternative (differential) response provides services to children and families prior to an allegation
of child abuse or neglect.
In April 2007, DCF awarded contracts under its Differential Response Pilot Initiative of
approximately $4.2 million to pilot sites covering Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem
Counties to engage vulnerable families and provide supportive, prevention services to promote
healthy family functioning. As reported in the last Monitoring Report, the pilot sites use a
Differential Response approach that is based on and consistent with the new Case Practice
Model. The sites are able to respond to families in a family-centered, child-focused, communitybased manner 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Referrals are screened by the State Central
Registry (SCR) and primarily transmitted to the Differential Response agency through a live,
warm-line telephone transfer. Differential Response case managers meet with families within 72
hours of referral and family team meetings are held within 10 days of the referral.
Between September 2007 and September 2008, 962 families were served by the Differential
Response initiative in Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem counties.33 Differential
Response case managers in Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem Counties have case loads of
between 15 and 16 families and in Camden County have case loads of between 20 and 35
families. In Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem Counties, the two most identified needs were
temporary or emergency financial assistance and mental health services for children. In Camden
County, housing, rent, utility or emergency shelter needs were identified most often.
During the next monitoring period, the Differential Response Pilot Initiative is being expanded to
Union and Middlesex Counties. A bidder’s conference was held in May 2008 and two agencies
were selected to implement Differential Response. DCF is currently finalizing the contracts and
anticipate the services to begin in the near future. Additionally, the Differential Response case
managers will be offered training on the family support concept through the Partnership for
Family Success Training and Technical Assistance Center.34 The Division of Prevention and
Community Partnerships has advised that the training will be aligned with the DCF Case Practice
Model, the Strengthening Families Initiative protective factors, and the New Jersey Standards of
Prevention. DCF also plans to have all Differential Response staff attend training for the Family
Development Credential offered through Rutgers University in collaboration with Cornell
University.
DYFS local office management reports good relationships with the Differential Response
providers. Initially it was a challenge for DYFS staff in the pilot sites, particularly Intake staff,
to understand which cases are appropriate for Differential Response and which for child welfare
service assessments, but the use of Differential Response services are now better understood.
Additionally, management in some of the Differential Response Pilot Sites report that the referral
process has become smoother as communications between the DYFS local offices and the
Differential Response programs has improved. The State has committed to a formal evaluation of
the Pilot experience after additional implementation experience.
33
Based on DCF internal reports.
This partnership is a five agency consortia designed to train all family-serving grantees within the Division of
Prevention and Community Partnerships and the Family Support Organizations in the Division of Behavioral Health
Services (DCBHS).
34
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 45
October 30, 2008
Peace: A Learned Solution (PALS)
In addition to the Differential Response initiative, DCF has expanded the Peace: A Learned
Solution (PALS) violence prevention program to comply with the MSA (Section II.C.9) and has
expanded support for Family Success Centers. The PALS program is an evidence-based
comprehensive assessment and treatment program which uses art therapy for children and nonoffending parents exposed to domestic violence in an attempt to reduce the impact of domestic
violence on children, improve child and family functioning and well-being and break the cycle of
abuse for future generations. Each PALS program provides comprehensive assessments, child
care and/or summer camp, case management, group and individual therapy and education
support, follow up services and transportation. Each child and family receives intensive
therapeutic and case management services for six months and follow-up services for an
additional six months. The PALS caseworker meets with the parent on a weekly or biweekly
basis to assist the family with daily living needs and to coordinate the therapeutic and supportive
services being provided.
During this monitoring period, the new PALS programs in Atlantic, Monmouth, Ocean and
Union Counties served 138 children and 83 non-offending parents. Specifically, the programs
provided children with individual, family, group and outreach therapy, advocacy and family case
management. Parents involved with the PALS programs received parenting classes, support
groups individual, group and family therapy, information and referrals and financial assistance.
Family Success Centers
In 2007, DCF awarded new funding to twenty-one Family Success Centers (FSC) in New Jersey.
Through the Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships, DCF also transitioned 11 of its
FACES programs to Family Success Centers with a slight increase in funding from existing
dollars. These actions have expanded the network to 32 state-supported Family Success Centers
in 16 counties. In addition, DCF reports that it oversees five Family Support Centers through the
Atlantic County Children & Families Initiatives (AC-CFI). These five centers are similar in
vision and mission, but are not yet mandated to provide all the same core and expanded services
as the 32 Family Success Centers. These five centers will receive training and technical
assistance through the Training Partnership as well.
The purpose of Family Success Centers is to strengthen families by providing integrated, locallybased services to families in the communities in which they live. The Family Success Centers
offer an innovative approach to working with families that is collaborative; local residents serve
as mentors and decision-makers, and families identify their own goals that are supported and
reinforced by staff. Family Success Centers are situated in many types of settings: storefronts,
houses, schools, houses of worship, office buildings, or housing projects. Community
involvement, economic self sufficiency and shared responsibility are emphasized. The core
services of the Family Success Centers include access to information on child, maternal and
family health services, development of strength-based plans to address challenges to family
stability and safety, provision of income security services, connection to other public and private
resources, life skills training, parent education and home visiting. These services are available to
any family in the community with no prerequisites.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 46
October 30, 2008
In addition, DCF continued its work as a pilot program of the national Strengthening Families
Initiative (SFI), seeking to improve linkages between child welfare and early care and education
programs. Efforts include training early care and education professionals in every county
through the New Jersey Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies to work more
effectively with DCF. To date, 114 Early Care and Education Centers have been identified and
trained in the Strengthening Families/Protective Factors approach. These Centers also agreed to
establish connections with local DYFS offices, an innovative strategy to establish a statewide
Strengthening Families Network linking local child care resources to DYFS field offices.
The State has added over 250 additional child care slots
The MSA requires the state to “support an additional 250 child care slots for children whose
families are involved with DYFS above the baseline available as of June 2006” (Section II.C.8).
Contracting and fiscal responsibility for providing state-sponsored child care rests with the
Division of Family Development within the Department of Human Services. Children who are
abused or neglected or are at risk for abuse or neglect are prioritized for enrollment.
In June 2006, there were 2,135 child care slots for children whose families were involved with
DYFS. In April 2008, the number of slots for these children had increased by 322 to 2,457. The
Monitor’s site visits suggest that workers believe they are able to help families access child care.
Further, families who have adopted children through DYFS can receive child care benefits.
According to DCF, 318 additional post-adoption child care slots were made available between
June 2006 and April 2008. There are now 490 post-adoption childcare slots available.
Flexible Funds
By June 2008, the MSA required New Jersey to increase the flexible funding available to meet
the unique needs of children and birth families, above the amount available as of December 2006
in order to facilitate family preservation and reunification where appropriate (Section II.C.10).
Additionally, by June 2008, the State was required to provide flexible funding, meant to ensure
that families are able to provide appropriate care for children and to avoid the disruption of
otherwise stable and appropriate placements at the same level or higher than provided in FY07
(MSA Section II.H.14).
As required under the MSA, New Jersey amended its policies and procedures in June 2007 to
increase the utilization of flexible funds for birth families involved with DYFS to facilitate
family preservation and reunification where appropriate. The policy change increased the amount
of possible expenditures from the flex fund pool from $1,500 per parent annually to $8,634
annually and extended the limitation on payments from three months to twelve months (MSA
Section II.C.3).
The “flex funds” are intended to supplement the existing array of services for which DCF
contracts to meet the needs of children and families. During State Fiscal Year 2007, the DCF
budget included $2.7 million to flexible funds and during State Fiscal Year 2008, DCF increased
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 47
October 30, 2008
the funding to $3.7 million. These increased resources were allocated to the DYFS local offices
and DYFS workers were trained on the availability and use of these flexible funds as a part of the
Case Practice Model Implementation roll-out and Immersion. The Monitor currently cannot
assess whether this $1 million increase is sufficient. With the increased use of Family Team
Meetings through the implementation of the Case Practice Model, it is likely that the demand for
these funds could increase as a means to create individualized service plans for children and
families.
In site visits, DYFS local office staff reported creatively using flex funds to facilitate family
preservation and reunification, to support individualized child and family-centered service plans
and to ensure out-of-home placements are stable. Flex funds play a critical role in the
deployment of the Case Practice Model as they are used to support individualized child and
family-centered service plans created during Family Team Meetings. For example, DYFS paid
for and provided a family with Pediasure for a medically fragile child until the family began to
receive WIC payments. This kept the child in the home and facilitated family preservation. In
another example, DYFS hired an exterminator to rid a family’s home of bed bugs and replaced
their beds with flex funds. The Monitor also heard evidence of creative uses of flex funds to
stabilize out-of-home placements. An example of this was the use of flex funds to enroll a youth
in a dance competition and to provide her with the necessary accoutrements for the competition
in order to help her adjust to her out-of-home placement. Flex funds are being used in more
basic ways to pay utility bills, to send children to summer camp or extracurricular activities, for
child care, and for respite services.
DCF has succeeded in increasing capacity to provide substance abuse services, but the need
for more accessible services remains.
In this monitoring period, DCF was required to increase its capacity to provide substance abuse
services to parents and children above the baseline slots available as of June 2006. (MSA Section
II.C.12). It was required to add 30 new residential treatment slots for parents, 50 new intensive
outpatient care slots for parents, and 20 new residential treatments slots for youth above capacity
in June 2006.
As demonstrated in Table 6 below, since June 2006 DCF reports that it has funded:
•
•
•
Sixty-four new intensive outpatient treatment slots for parents and children. Of these, 48
slots were added in July 2007; 8 more were added in June 2008; and eight additional slots
are being added as of November 2008. These programs provide intensive gender
specific, family centered substance abuse programming.
Thirty adult residential treatment slots statewide. These programs provide intensive
gender-specific substance abuse treatment services as well as programs to address issues
of domestic violence, sexual and physical abuse, trauma, and parenting.
Twenty adolescent residential treatment slots. Three slots are provided by service
providers with existing contracts with DYFS. In addition to substance abuse treatment,
these programs provide individual, group and didactic sessions and include programs that
cover issues such as sexuality, gang activity, abuse and victimization.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 48
October 30, 2008
These totals include 17 adolescent residential treatments slots that were part of a Request for
Proposal (RFP) issued in May 2008. DCF reports this RFP was re-issued in October 2008 and
anticipates beds to be operational by March 2009. Further, DCF determined an additional need
for adolescent intensive outpatient treatment programs and funded 19 slots for them in the May
2008 RFP that were beyond what is required by the MSA.
Despite these improvements, the need for quality substance abuse treatment programs in New
Jersey for parents and youth involved with DYFS remains great. DYFS has certified alcohol and
drug counselors at every DYFS local office. They identify families with potential substance
abuse issues, evaluate the need, and link individuals to appropriate treatment providers. These
counselors perform a critical role for families, but it is made more difficult by the lack of
availability of programs. In every office the Monitor visited, staff described a lack of quality
substance abuse treatment program to refer families to and long waiting lists for existing
providers. And, while a slot may be available to a parent or youth elsewhere in the state,
caseworkers describe challenges to getting a parent or youth to attend programs located too far
from home to be feasible. If a parent lives in the southern part of New Jersey, it is not realistic or
practical to refer him to an outpatient program in the north. The Department of Human Services,
the Division of Addiction Services and DYFS should consider re-assessing utilization of existing
contracts and whether additional substance abuse slots or contracts are required.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 49
October 30, 2008
Table 6: Expansion of Substance Abuse Services Utilization
January 1 - June 30, 2008
Type of Substance
Required
Number of Slots and
Geographic Area
Abuse Program
Slots
Date Added
Residential Treatment
for Parents and
Children
30
Intensive Outpatient
Treatment for Parents
and Children
50
Seabrook House – 30 (July 2006)
Statewide
Parkside – 12 (July 2007)
Camden
SODAT – 12 (July 2007)
Gloucester/
Cumberland
Family Recovery – 12 (July 2007)
Essex
Preferred Behavioral Health – 12
(July 2007)
Ocean/
Monmouth
Center for Great Expectations – 8
(June 2008)
Statewide
RFP Announced – 8 (May 2008)
Statewide
Total = 64
Residential Treatment
for Adolescents
20
RFP Announced – 17 (May 2008)
and be re-issued October 2008
Purchase of service from existing
contract providers – 3
Statewide
Total = 20
Adolescent Intensive
Outpatient Treatment
None
RFP Announced – 19 (May 2008)
Statewide
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 50
October 30, 2008
D.
Permanency Planning and Adoption
DCF continues to finalize adoptive homes for legally free children at a steady pace.
Much progress has been made during this monitoring period toward improving permanency
outcomes for children and youth. DCF continues to actively find homes for these children and
works to finalize adoptions quickly. As of December 2007, there were 1,295 children legally
free for adoption. Between January and June 2008, 478 legally free children had finalized
adoptions. While the number of adoptions is lower than in the past two years, that decline is to
be expected because the overall number of legally free children—those children who are
awaiting adoption—continues to decline. Table 7 provides information to date of number of
adoptions finalized by county between January and June 2008.
Table 7: Adoption Finalizations (January – June 2008)
Local Office
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Total
January - June 2008
6
28
14
46
2
23
114
17
28
4
6
31
25
11
34
22
13
10
1
43
0
478
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, September 2008
As required under the MSA, DCF reports that it continues to provide paralegal support to assist
with the necessary adoption paperwork and that all Area offices have access to case summary
writers (Section II.G.5).
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 51
October 30, 2008
Permanency for Older Youth
DCF has made progress towards finding permanency for the 100 Longest Waiting Teens.
Over the last year, specific attention has been directed toward older youth waiting the longest for
a permanent family. This project called the “100 Longest Waiting Teens” created Teen
Recruitment Impact Teams and resulted in policy and practice change. Through the significant
efforts of DYFS staff working in partnership with teens, slow and steady progress has been made
in finding permanent homes for these children. As reflected in Figure 6 below, the majority of
the 100 longest waiting youth are over the age of fifteen (72) and are African American (89).
Figure 6: Longest Waiting Teens by Race and Gender
Age 18
3
50
Age 17
Age 16
10
Male
Female
Age 15
40
Age 14
Age 13
5
13
Age 12
30
Age 11
12
Age 10
11
20
11
8
1
2
1
ic
(0
)
isp
an
H
si a
n
(3
7)
Ca
uc
a
0
A
fri
ca
n
Am
(4
)
1
isp
an
(4
)
2
1
H
si a
n
Ca
uc
a
A
fri
ca
n
Am
er
ic
an
(5
2)
0
8
2
11
er
ic
an
4
3
ic
(3
)
10
Source: Longest Waiting Teens Mid-Year Report Based on 100 Longest Waiting Teens DCF Report, June 2008
DCF reports that since the inception of this work seven teens have finalized adoptions, three
within the last reporting period. Another 10 youth placed in select adoptive homes are awaiting
finalization, and three more were placed during the last reporting period. Six youth have plans
for relative adoptive placement. These are significant strides given the often complex needs of
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 52
October 30, 2008
the youth who have endured the foster care system for long periods of their lives. Much work
remains in finding permanent homes and in engaging youth to think about and be open to finding
permanent lifelong connections. DCF reports that several youth (currently 8) require help
becoming psychologically stable before pursuing an adoption plan and some other youth are
pursuing Independent Living Programs by their own choice (9) or are remaining in their foster
home placement even though the caregiver is unwilling to adopt (7).
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 53
October 30, 2008
VI.
APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
A.
Resource Families
As previously reported, DCF made exceptional progress in recruitment and licensure of new
resource families in 2007. (MSA Section II.H.11). DCF continued this impressive trend in the
first half of 2008.
DCF recruited and licensed 992 new kin and non-kin Resource Families in the first six
months of 2008, far exceeding its target of 764 families.
The State licensed a total of 992 new Resource Family homes during this period, more than two
hundred homes above the target and had a net gain of 414 resource homes. 35
Figure 7: Number of Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes
January 1 - June 30, 2008
1200
992
1000
Non- Kinship = 597
764
800
600
400
Kinship = 395
200
0
Target
Actual
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Adoption Operations and Resource Families.
Figure 8 below provides data on the number of new kinship and non-kinship homes licensed
each month and the net gain. As reflected in Figure 8 below, DCF achieved a net gain of 414
Resource Family homes in the first half of 2008. DCF licensed 992 homes in the past six months
and closed 578 homes. Closures are expected and can occur for any number of reasons,
including an adoption, a change in family circumstances, or a move out-of-state.
35
Data on Resource Family homes must include an assessment of net gains in the number of licenses homes. A net
gain is necessary to sustain DCF’s goal to ensure there are sufficient family based settings in which to place
children.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 54
October 2008
Figure 8: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship)
and Net Gain
January – June 2008
Total Licensed=992; Net Gain=414
250
200
192
184
179
161
142
150
100
134
98
88
76
63
50
63
26
0
Jan. 2008
Feb. 2008
Mar. 2008
Apr. 2008
May 2008
June 2008
Month
Number of New Homes
Net Gain
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Adoption Operations and Resource Families.
In 2006 and 2007, MSA requirements focused exclusively on licensing of non-kin family homes.
As detailed in the last Monitoring Report, in order to eliminate any disincentive to recruit and
license kin family homes, beginning in 2008 DCF expanded its target setting to include both kin
and non-kin homes. Including kinship homes into the target setting increased the number of
newly licensed kinship homes in this monitoring period dramatically. Three hundred and ninetyfive (40%) of the total number of licensed homes are kinship homes (see Table 8). In
comparison, in 2007, 28 percent of the total number of the newly licensed homes were kinship
homes.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 55
October 2008
Table 8: Newly Licensed Kinship and Non-Kinship Resource Family Homes by Month
January – June 2008
Number of Newly
Number of Newly
Licensed Kin Resource
Licensed Non-Kin
Family homes
Resource Family homes
Month
Total Licensed
January 2008
66
113
179
February 2008
52
90
142
March 2008
53
81
134
April 2008
70
114
184
May 2008
93
99
192
June 2008
61
100
161
395
597
992
Total
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families Adoption Operations and Resource Families.
DCF’s Resource Family Support and Resource Family Licensing units have achieved impressive
results. The Monitor reviewed a random sample of approximately 20 percent of licensing files
from December 2007 to June 2008 and verified reported DCF data. Strong leadership and
thoughtful planning in this area appear to have made a significant difference in the recruiting and
licensing of foster families in New Jersey.
The State made progress on timely processing of Resource Home applications but continues to
face challenges to complete the licensing review process and make licensing decisions within
150 days.
The Department has continued to use Resource Family Support Impact Teams (Impact Teams) to
assist in completing the licensing review process and to make decisions on Resource Family
home applications within 150 days (MSA Section II.H.4).
In the past six months, the Impact Teams worked in nine field offices: Ocean South, Newark
Center City, Hudson North, Hudson Central, Gloucester, Cumberland, Bergen South, Burlington
West, and Monmouth North. Much of the work involves fostering better communication
between field and licensing staff by encouraging regular conferencing of challenging cases. The
Impact Teams were also involved in:
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 56
October 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
Developing a new report that DYFS local office managers and Assistant Area directors
receive monthly regarding pending resource family applications that need special
attention;
Developing a better communications loop from the field to the resource family central
office staff;
Coordinating enhanced training and coaching for supervisory and field staff on
conducting home studies. 46 Resource Family supervisors and 106 Resource Family
support staff participated in this training;
Replacing less popular one-on-one orientation training sessions with group orientation
sessions for potential foster families;
Increasing from three to six the number of peer advocates. Peer advocates are foster
parents from Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS), an organization DYFS
contracts with to assist, support and recruit foster parents;
Assisting in the revision of existing Resource Family home licensing regulations.
Despite ongoing challenges, the Office of Licensing and Resource Families continues to promote
better coordination and communication, which has contributed to the increasing number of
applications licensed within 150 days. Over 300 resource family licensing and field staff
participated in a three day workshop with a focus on better integrating the recruitment and
licensing process. Topics included the 150 day licensing process, an introduction to the new
Case Practice Model, the home study and inspection process, interviewing skills and customer
service training. In meetings with DYFS local office staff, the Monitor was frequently told how
communication between licensing and resource family field staff has improved markedly over
the past year.
During the last monitoring period, 25 percent of applications begun in July 2007 were licensed
within 150 days. As reflected in Table 9 below, from August 2007 to January 2008,
performance improved and an average of 43 percent of resource family applications were
resolved within 150 days.
Table 9: Total Number of Resource Family Homes Resolved Within 150 Days
August 2007 - January 2008
Total
Applications Resolved
Applications
in 150 Days
Month Applied
Number
Number
Percent
290
136
47%
August 2007
September 2007
259
104
40%
October 2007
269
103
38%
November 2007
207
90
43%
December 2007
225
100
44%
January 2008
275
124
45%
Total
1525
657
43%
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families Adoption Operations and Resource Families.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 57
October 2008
DCF reports that the challenges to completing the licensing process within 150 days fall into two
categories. The first category relates to delays and challenges inherent in working with families
that have their own personal timeframes and needs. Families often need additional time to make
a decision as important as taking on the care of a foster child. Or, personal challenges arise that
delay the process, such as an unexpected illness, job change or financial situation. Resource
Family leadership report that staff is often caught between wanting to comply with the 150 day
timeframe, and knowing a given family may need more time to become ready to foster a child.
The second category applies to challenges within the Department related to the workforce and
the complexity of the home licensing task. New workers may need more time to become facile
with the home study process, whereas experienced workers process applications faster
According to policy, the first 60 of the 150 day timeframe for licensing is devoted to field work,
primarily conducted by the Resource Family Support Worker (RFSW) and his/her supervisor.
By the ninety day mark, the field staff is supposed to send the application to the DYFS Office of
Licensing to prepare for inspection and to resolve any violations. In focus groups, RFSWs
suggested they frequently need more than the 90 days assigned to them to finish the home study
packet before it goes to licensing for approval. The Monitor suggests an examination of policy
to determine whether an increase in the number of days field staff has to complete the application
coupled with a decrease in time allocated for OOL licensing staff is warranted as well as a
detailed look at applications taking longer to identify barriers and to assess the 150 day
timeframe.
DCF is exploring how other jurisdictions resolve the issue of licensure timeframes, and has
requested continued dialogue with plaintiffs and the Monitor on this issue.
DCF launched its automated resource family tracking system but has encountered challenges.
In 2007, DCF invested in a new automated placement request matching system which identifies
with specificity appropriate Resource Family homes for children coming into care as required by
the MSA (Section II.H.9). Prior to the deployment of NJ SPIRIT, the Monitor observed the
functionality of this tracking system and how staff could obtain names of open homes available
for placement within minutes.
During the past six months, since NJ SPIRIT became operational, DCF has attempted to put
resources into making this new tool accessible to its Resource Family home workers. DCF
conducted 12 training sessions for resource family workers and supervisors, much of which
related to use of the new tool. Half of the training day was devoted to class training, the other
half to hands-on technical assistance. Additional training and review sessions were held to
further explain how the system is intended to operate
Despite this effort, there remains inconsistent use of the automated system by DYFS local office
staff. Site visits revealed a wide range of opinion as to how useful and how accurate the new
tracking system is. In some cases, resource family facilitators were developing their own
spreadsheets of available Resource Family homes in lieu of using the new database. One DYFS
local office reported that the resource family support worker is notified of changes in placement
status of Resource Family homes, but the facilitator who keeps the spreadsheet is not provided
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 58
October 2008
with the same information. Since the new database was designed as a comprehensive tool for use
statewide, the development of individualized locally produced data processes is of concern.36
Given the potential this new tool has to significantly improve the timeliness with which a worker
can identify available Resource Family homes for a child, all efforts should be made to ensure
that the tool is used to its fullest capacity. The Monitor recommends that DCF resolve whatever
challenges to implementation of the tracking system remain for staff so that they can take full
advantage of this innovation.
DCF continues to strive to recruit large capacity Resource Family homes and to maintain the
goals it set to keep children entering placement in their home counties.
Siblings
During the last monitoring period DCF did a needs assessment in each county to set annualized
targets for Resource Family home recruitment (Section II. H. 13). The needs assessment
identified keeping sibling groups together and placing children closer to their communities and
schools as two top priorities to factor into the target setting calculations. The needs assessment
identified that New Jersey needed more placement homes to accommodate sibling groups of 5 or
more children. DCF set a target of 28 licensed homes with a capacity to serve 5 or more children
by December 30, 2008. It placed particular emphasis on homes in Essex, Mercer, Monmouth
and Ocean counties. As of the end of 2007, there were 16 such home statewide and thus a
recruitment goal was set for an additional 12 large capacity homes for siblings.
To meet this target, DCF has developed specialized recruitment and support strategies – termed
SIBS for “Siblings in Best Settings”-- to identify, recruit and license larger capacity homes.
These strategies include a special means of identifying larger capacity homes in the resource
family database to ensure that they are reserved for large sibling groups. As part of the strategy,
DCF contracted with Adopt Us Kids National Resource Center to conduct two full day training
sessions on the importance of keeping siblings together; approximately 140 staff were trained.
DCF also approved an enhanced recruitment incentive, or “retainer fee” for large capacity
Resource Family homes. Finally, the FAFS Peer-to-Peer staff and Area Office Resource Family
Specialists have been charged to work with families willing to care for large sibling groups to
help them succeed. DCF licensed five large capacity homes in this monitoring period, four of
which were kin homes and one of which was non-kin.
While large capacity homes are always a need, staff in each site visit also reported a need for
homes for youth of all ages, and particularly for pre-teens and teens. This is not a problem
unique to New Jersey, but it should not be overlooked.
Geographic Alignment
The target setting process described above also involved a geographic analysis comparing
capacity of Resource Family homes by county. Of the 21 counties, the State reports that 18 made
36
For more information on this issue and other challenges to NJ SPIRIT, see pg. 37.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 59
October 2008
significant progress relative to need, 2 maintained and 1, Passaic County, fell below goals for
recruiting and licensing new resource families.
Table 10 below indicates progress on the net number of Resource Family homes licensed by
county. 37
Table 10: Net Number of Resource Family Homes Licensed by County
January – June 2008
Total Number of
Resource Family
Homes Licensed
Total Number of
Resource Family
Homes Closed
Maintain
Small Increase
Maintain
Small Increase
Increase
Increase
Increase
Maintain
Increase
Maintain
Increase
Small Increase
Increase
Maintain
Increase
Small Increase
Increase
Maintain
Maintain
Small Increase
Maintain
34
66
67
71
18
33
166
28
52
8
53
56
45
30
67
34
12
34
21
84
13
32
24
36
53
12
14
83
24
19
9
22
18
35
22
48
37
8
19
11
36
16
2
42
31
18
6
19
83
4
33
-1
31
38
10
8
19
-3
4
15
10
48
-3
Total
992
578
414
County
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Cumberland
Essex
Gloucester
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Ocean
Passaic
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
Goal
Net Gain
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families
37
See p. 44 Table 14 of Monitoring Report 3 in which the state lists each county and classifies them in three ways:
(1) counties in which a significant net increase in available homes is needed labeled Increase, (2) counties which
currently have adequate supply of homes but need improvement labeled Improve, and (3) counties that have an
excess number of homes but will need to recruit and license more to accommodate turnover and attrition labeled
Maintain. In Table 10, DCF has changed the label Improve to Small Increase.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 60
October 2008
DCF is particularly proud of Essex County, which increased its net by 83 homes. As seen in
Table 10, three counties had a decrease in homes: Passaic (which had a goal to increase capacity)
and Hunterdon and Warren which had maintenance goals. While the losses in those three
counties were small, they will need to have net gains in the next period to maintain needed
Resource Family home capacity.
DCF reports that an Impact Team will be focusing on Passaic County in the next monitoring
period to help resource family staff meet the county’s need for newly licensed resource families.
The State published new licensing regulations that are expected to become final by January
2009.
In June 2008 DCF proposed new regulations to address avoidable barriers to licensing Resource
Family homes in New Jersey. The predominant modification in the new set of regulations
addresses room size and space specifications for Resource Family homes. DCF’s guidelines for
room size and space had been adopted from the state’s guidelines for new construction which
were drafted in 1970. Since a significant portion of the housing stock in New Jersey was built
before 1970, the standards were overly exclusionary and often inadvertently discriminated
against potential kinship and family placements. In drafting its new regulations, DCF looked to
other states’ guidelines and adapted them to suit New Jersey’s needs. The new regulations are
responsive to input the Department received from many stakeholders and from its Resource
Family staff.
DCF also updated other provisions in the regulations, such as the creation of the Department of
Children and Families and the recognition of civil unions. The comment period for the new
regulations ended in August 2008. Barring unanticipated complications, the State expects the
new licensing regulations to become final by January 2009. They are expected to increase the
Department’s ability to license qualified kinship Resource Family homes.
Staff report that many immigrant families would be willing to become Resource Family homes
but for their immigration status and the bar to licensure it presents. The Monitor recommends
that DCF look to policy in other states to see if immigrant families could be considered for
licensure.
DCF is appropriately using exception to population waivers
MSA Section III.C.1 sets limitations as to how many children can be placed in a Resource
Family home at one time. The State can waive these requirements in appropriate circumstances
in order to “allow a group of siblings to be placed together.” The Monitor reviewed all 13
waivers awarded to Resource Family homes in this monitoring period. Of the 13 waivers, 10
were awarded in order to keep sibling groups together. Two were for children requiring homes
which accept medically fragile children. Another waiver was awarded to temporarily place a
Spanish-speaking autistic child in a home with parents who could speak his language. This small
review may suggest the need for more Resource Family homes that accept medically fragile
children, a sentiment often repeated by staff in DYFS local offices.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 61
October 2008
B.
Shelters
DCF continues work to prevent the inappropriate use of shelters for children entering foster
care and has been successful in restricting shelter use for children under the age of 13.
The MSA requires the State to eliminate the inappropriate use of shelters for youth entering
foster care. The only appropriate uses of shelters are: “(i) as an alternative to detention, or (ii) a
short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis which shall not extend beyond 45 days; or (iii) a
basic center for homeless youth” or when there is a court order. (MSA Section II.D.8). Further,
beginning in July 2007, shelters were not to be used as a placement option for children under the
age of 13 (MSA Section II.D.7). DCF developed policy to support these placement restrictions
in the late spring of 2007. Memos outlining these restrictions were sent to Area Directors and
local office Managers on May 2, 2007 with reminders sent on June 6, 2007.
DCF continues to experience difficulty in reporting on this requirement. DCF intends to use an
automated process in NJ SPIRIT and Safe Measures to monitor shelter placements in the coming
months. DCF will also be convening an internal working group comprised of staff from DYFS,
DCBHS and the data analysis unit to review the placements not in compliance with the MSA
requirements.
DCF reports that 451 youth over the age of 13 were placed in shelters during the monitoring
period. Of the 451 youth, 358 (79%) were placed in shelters in compliance with the MSA. Due
to data limitations, DCF is currently unable to report the length of stay of these youth in the
shelter placements.
In the period of January to June 2008, DCF reports there were a total of five children statewide
under the age of 13 who spent time in a shelter, less than .06 percent of the 7728 children under
age 13 in out-of-home placement as of June 30, 2008. According to DCF, of the five children
under age 13 placed in shelters, two were court ordered to be placed and the other three were
short-term emergency placements. DCF is working with external stakeholders in Camden
County to ensure compliance with the MSA’s shelter provisions and is looking more closely into
the situations of three children who were placed in a shelter due to emergency.
C.
Services and Supports for Youth
DCF continues efforts to improve frontline practice with older youth.
In an effort to integrate services currently available to adolescents and to leverage more
resources, DYFS has reorganized adolescent services under an Assistant Director for Adolescent
Practice and Permanency in Central Office. This director reports to the Deputy Director of Case
Practice and Program Support. The Adolescent Practice and Permanency Unit (APPU), a part of
this office, will work intensively with 5 DYFS local offices during the next monitoring period to
analyze the needs of adolescents and the resources available through DYFS to support youth in
achieving permanency and obtaining necessary skills to transition into adulthood. The Monitor
will track the progress of this work over the next several months.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 62
October 2008
Currently, 13 DYFS local offices have designated workers to specialize in providing services to
adolescents in DYFS custody. In the beginning stages, DYFS local office managers report that
youth will be assigned to these units based on treatment needs, single status (i.e., entering into
out-of-home care not part of a sibling group with young children), and age (with the focus on
older teens and youth 18-21). Site visits confirm that Adolescent workers have a caseload of up
to 15 youth and that these workers focus on finding permanent lifelong connections for youth in
addition to providing independent living skills services. These workers were knowledgeable
about the rights of youth ages 18-21 to continue to receive services from DYFS and informed the
Monitor of the many ways they worked with older youth to convince them to remain in DYFS
care. Such a dedicated group of workers appears necessary for this population as the Monitor
has received reports from concerned community members that some youth are being persuaded,
encouraged, and in some instances coerced to sign themselves out of DYFS custody upon their
18th birthday. Further, community members report that many DYFS workers have limited
understanding of resources in the community available for older youth and do not regularly
create transitional living plans for these youth. The Monitor supports DCF’s efforts to improve
adolescent practice and was impressed with the knowledge and quality of the few specialized
adolescent workers met during site visits. Given that nationwide the outcomes for youth who
transition out of foster care are so poor, the Monitor will continue to evaluate DCF’s strategies to
enhance independent living skills and find permanent families for older youth.
DCF is working to increase supports for youth ages 18-21.
Commendably, DCF continues to focus on expanding the number of youth 18-21 who receive
services if they have not achieved permanency by age 18, and the range of supports available and
provided to older youth. By policy as required under the MSA, youth ages 18-21 can continue to
receive similar services available to them when they were under the age of 18. These services
shall continue to be provided to them unless the youth formally requests that their case be closed
(Section II.C.5).
For the period of January – June 2008, DCF reported the following:
• 521 youth ages 18-21 were receiving in-home services;
• 885 youth ages 18-21 were receiving out-of-home services, including Medicaid;
• 107 additional youth were enrolled in Chafee Medicaid;38 and
• 443 youth received financial support during the 2007-2008 school year through the NJ
Scholars Program.
DCF is employing several strategies to enhance adolescent practice through a partnership
with Rutgers Child Advocacy Center.
Rutgers Institute for Families currently conducts training for local office staff on DYFS policy,
youth development issues, and the importance of lifelong connections. Rutgers also conducts
training for DYFS involved youth to assist them in advocating for themselves and networking
38
In the next monitoring period, the Monitor intends to work with DCF to further look at Chafee Medicaid in
relation to youth leaving custody between the ages of 18-21 to determine if every eligible youth is appropriately
enrolled.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 63
October 2008
with other youth.39 Finally, Rutgers is supporting the Youth Advisory Boards in each county
(currently there are boards in 19 of the 21 counties in New Jersey). DCF reports that these boards
currently provide feedback to DYFS on policy and practice issues such as reviewing the annual
Chafee plan and participating in the Child and Family Services Review.
DYFS has reduced the use of congregate care for youth.
DCF is building its capacity to place youth with families, rather than group home settings. There
were 1,552 youth (15% of the 10,390 youth in out-of-home placement) in congregate care in
January 2007. Over a year later in March 2008, DCF reports 1,348 youth (14% of the 9,556
youth in out-of-home placement) in congregate care settings. The increase in independent living
program beds and therapeutic foster homes has assisted in part in the reductions in the number
and percentage of youth in congregate care settings.
DCF has increased the number of transitional living programs slots to 263, significantly more
than the 18 required by the MSA, but still below the need for such programs identified in
many communities.
In April 2007, DCF far exceeded the MSA June 2009 requirement to establish 18 beds available
to youth transitioning out of the foster care system (Section II.C.11). DCF established 112
transitional living beds, and dedicated a handful of these beds to youth who identify as gay,
lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual (GLBTI).
DCF has continued to increase services available to this population and now has a total of 263
transitional living program beds. These beds are located in apartments or buildings, some of
which were built specifically to support transitioning youth. These programs offer services
including case management, life skills, and employment readiness, and they have varying levels
of available supervision. Table 11 below describes how many slots are available and the
counties in which these services are located. Despite these important improvements, workers
and supervisors during site visits uniformly described their frustration in the lack of services for
youth who will be “aging out” of the foster care system. Workers described 6-8 month waits for
transitional living services. Thus, this continuing commitment to expanding resources to youth
transitioning out of foster care is much needed.
39
Rutgers has a website, www.transitionsforyouth.org to assist in linking DYFS involved youth with available
services and a supportive on-line community.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 64
October 2008
County
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Cape May
Table 11: Youth Transitional and Supported Housing Grants
Total No. of Contracted
No. of Slots
Program/Housing slots
Operational
Provider
11
11
Bergen County CAP
CAFS
12
12
Crossroads
The Children’s Home
25
25
Center For Family Services
Vision Quest
4
4
CAPE Counseling
Essex
51
43
Gloucester
30
30
Hudson
18
15
Mercer
24
4
Middlesex
11
11
Monmouth
24
24
Ocean
7
7
Passaic
24
24
Somerset
10
10
Union
12
12
Total:
263
232
Covenant House, Corinthian
Homes,
Care Plus, Tri-City Peoples
Robin’s Nest
Catholic Charities,
Volunteers of America
Lifeties
Anchorage
Middlesex Interfaith Partners
with the Homeless (MIPH)
Garden State Homes
IEP
Catholic Charities
Collier Services
Ocean Harbor House
Paterson Coalition
NJ DC
Somerset Home for
Temporarily Displaced
Children
Community Access
14 Counties
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, September 2008
DCF still needs to fully and meaningfully implement its GLBTQI plan.
MSA Section II.C.4 requires DCF to create and implement a plan that would support youth who
identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or intersexual (GLBTQI). A
preliminary plan was developed in 2007 with intentions by the State to refine and expand it as
implementation proceeded. Since then, there has not been much focus or emphasis on
implementation. Based on interviews with DCF leadership, DYFS caseworkers, external
stakeholders and youth, the Monitor believes the plan is still under development and has yet to
roll out to meaningfully affect youth. The Monitor recommends that implementation of plans to
support GLBTQI be prioritized.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 65
October 2008
VII. MEETING THE MENTAL HEALTH AND HEALTH NEEDS OF
CHILDREN
A.
The Division of Child Behavioral Health Services continues to work on improving
the behavioral health services and delivery system
Much of the work of the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS) during this
monitoring period focused on a redistribution of existing resources and introduction and
procurement of new, high quality resources for children and youth with mental and behavioral
health needs. DCBHS continues its commitment to serve all children in New Jersey with an
array of community-based resources focused on preventing out-of-home and out-of-state
placements while appropriately meeting children’s mental and behavioral health needs and is
simultaneously focused on meeting needs for children and youth in DYFS custody.
The number of children placed out-of-state for treatment continues to decline.
Under the MSA, DCF, through DCBHS, is required to minimize the number of children in
DYFS custody placed in out-of-state congregate care settings and work to transition these
children back to New Jersey (Section II.D.2). As of June 2008, 159 children were placed out-ofstate. This represents a 48 percent reduction from one year ago in June 2007 when 305 children
were placed out-of-state for mental health treatment and a continued reduction since December
31, 2007, when 235 children were placed in out-of-state treatment facilities. DCBHS notes that
the goal of case conferences to review the circumstances of each child placed out-of-state was
not simply to reduce the number of children out-of-state but rather to focus on providing high
quality, appropriate care for children and youth as close to their home communities as possible.
DCBHS has now institutionalized the case conferencing process at the local DYFS office level
through the implementation of standardized tools and coaching and mentoring of the 15 Team
Leaders located in each area office. With technical assistance and monitoring from the central
office, these staff persons facilitate a locally-driven process aimed at transitioning children home
with appropriate local community supports. Figure 9 below illustrates the trend of out-of-state
residential treatment placements from June 2007 to June 2008.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 66
October 2008
Figure 9: Children in Out-of-State Placement
June 2007 – June 2008
350
305
Number of Children
300
292
289
282
277
250
244
235
200
229
220
213
205
199
159
150
100
50
00
8
Fe
b.
20
08
M
ar
ch
20
08
A
pr
il
20
08
M
ay
20
08
Ju
ne
20
08
.2
07
Ja
n
ec
.
20
00
7
D
ov
.2
00
7
N
.2
O
ct
t.
2
00
7
00
7
Se
p
ug
.2
A
20
0
ly
Ju
Ju
n
e2
00
7
7
0
Month
Source: DCBHS Administrative Data
The Division continues to look closely at new authorizations for out-of-state placement to ensure
that in-state resources have been fully considered. The Monitor has reviewed DCBHS data on
requests for authorizations. The Division’s oversight effort has had a positive impact on reducing
the number of out-of-state placements and has also provided the opportunity for the state to
gather and analyze data to assess trends in children’s needs and inform efforts to strengthen local
provider capacity. Table 12 shows the number of new out-of-state placements authorized for
children and youth during this reporting period. Figure 10 provides demographic information
on youth placed out-of-state.
Table 12: Out-of-State Placement Authorizations by DCBHS
January 1 - June 30, 2008
Number of Authorizations for
Month
Youth in DYFS Custody
(Total Number of Authorizations)
January 2008
2 (6)
February 2008
1 (5)
March 2008
3 (4)
April 2008
0 (2)
May 2008
2 (2)
June 2008
0
Total
8 (19)
Source: DCBHS
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 67
October 2008
Figure 10:
Youth Placed Out-of-State
45
40
8
Male
35
30
Female
6
13
25
7
21
20
15
12
19
5
0
4
3
4
10
9
4
2
1
Within 50 miles (23)
4
1
1
8
2
1
Within 75 miles (54)
3
1
3
2
4
2
Within 100 miles (33)
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
Over 100 miles (49)
Source: DCBHS.
As previously reported, the ability to reduce new out-of-state placements and transition children
to New Jersey has been made possible by continued expansion of residential treatment within the
State. Table 13 below illustrates the present DCF/DCBHS commitments and status of specialty
services beds.
Table 13: New Specialty Residential Capacity in New Jersey
Date and Number of New Placements Available
June
July
August
September
Total
2008
2008
2008
2008
May 2007
awards40
March 2008
awards41
Total
75
18
93
12
4
5
34
55
87
4
5
52
148
Source: DCBHS
40
41
January 2007 RFP
November 2007 RFP
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 68
October 2008
DCF and partners continue collaboration on finding placements for detained DYFS youth.
Under the MSA, no youth in DYFS custody should wait longer than 30 days in detention postdisposition for an appropriate placement (Section II.D.5). According to DCF, nine youth in
DYFS custody, all male, were in detention and awaiting placement during this monitoring
period. Eight of the youth were placed within 30 days: one was placed in a diagnostic facility,
two were placed in treatment homes, and six were placed in specialized group homes.
The stay of one of the youth exceeded the 30 day requirement; he was not placed until 42 days
post-disposition. The nine youth ranged in age from 14 to17. Table 14 below provides
information on the length of time each of these youth waited for placement.
Table 14:
Youth in DYFS Custody in Juvenile
Detention Post-Disposition Awaiting Placement
(January 1 - June 30, 2008)
Length of Time in Detention Post Disposition
Number of Youth
0-15 Days
0
16-30 Days
8
Over 30 Days
1
Total
9
Source: DCF, August 2008 DCBHS Summary Update.
For the one youth whose stay exceeded the 30 day requirement, the staff responsible for ensuring
timely transfers of youth in DYFS custody from detention centers did not receive notification of
his placement in detention until after the 30-day timeframe. According to DCF, none of the three
automated tracking systems in place reported on this youth. DCF and DCBHS have taken steps
to address the concerns that the tracking system failure raises including retraining youth case
management (YCM) staff, court liaisons and DCBHS case managers; facilitating of weekly
communication and monthly meetings between DYFS court liaisons and the YCM; and
obtaining the Administrative Office of the Courts’ (AOC) commitment to ensure its tracking
system is updated in a timely manner with weekly monitoring by the AOC’s Assistant Director
of the Family Practice Division.
DCBHS has added evidence-based treatment services and increased the pool of in-community
treatment providers for children and youth
DCBHS is funding Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), two
intensive clinical interventions with proven efficacy in serving youth presenting with a range of
behavioral challenges. See Table 15 below for provider information, counties served, and the
anticipated number of youth to be served. MST providers hosted local “kick-off” meetings to
introduce their organization and the service model to key community decision-makers. DCBHS
also facilitated meetings to introduce MST services to stakeholders in the respective
communities. FFT providers are also hosting kick-off meetings as a way of introducing the new
service to the community.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 69
October 2008
Table 15:
Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST) Providers
Average
Service
Anticipated
Length of
Provider
Program
County
Implementation Capacity
Service
Cumberland
October 2008
FFT
132
3-4 months
Gloucester
Robin’s Nest
Salem
Middlesex
University
Behavioral
HealthCare
FFT
Expanding to
parts of Union
and Somerset
Community
Treatment
Solutions
FFT
Cape Counseling
September 2008
100
3-4 months
Burlington
October 2008
80-100
3 months
FFT
Atlantic
Cape May
October 2008
126
4 months
Mercer Street
Friends
FFT
Mercer
October 2008
120
4 months
Center for Family
Services
MST
Camden
September 2008
60-75
3-5 months
Community
Solutions
60-75
Hudson
MST
4 months
October 2008
Essex
Total
60-75
663-728
Source: DCBHS
In January 2008 DCBHS lifted the moratorium on certifying new agencies, medical/mental
health practices, or individuals seeking to become enrolled by Medicaid as providers of Intensive
In-Community Mental Health Rehabilitative Services for children, youth and young adults. The
Division strongly encouraged bilingual and/or bicultural providers to respond. As a result,
DCBHS reports that many new providers demonstrated fluency in Arabic and Creole and
demonstrated skills in treating GLBTQI youth and trauma issues. The following gains were
made:
• Cumberland county: 18 new providers; four are fluent in Spanish
•
Gloucester county: 22 new providers; four are fluent in Spanish
•
Atlantic county: 20 new providers; three are fluent in Spanish
•
Passaic county: 35 new providers; 19 are fluent in Spanish.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 70
October 2008
An improved Contracted System Administrator for DCBHS services is now targeted for
Implementation in September 2009.
Originally anticipated for implementation by May 2009 with RFP and award dates in March
2008 and November 2008 respectively, DCF/DCBHS now expects implementation of a
Contracted System Administrator (CSA) in early September 2009 based on contract terms which
will be informed by an RFP to be issued in early October 2008. The CSA functions as a
common single point of entry for all children, youth and young adults accessing behavioral and
mental health services from DCF. The CSA also authorizes, tracks, and aids in coordinating care
for children, youth and young adults in manners consistent with the System of Care philosophy
which aligns with DCF’s practice model.42 Currently Value Options is the CSA and their
contract is extended in the interim. The RFP is informed by public forums and stakeholder
meetings conducted by DCF. Remodeling of the CSA will require developing and maintaining a
DYFS-dedicated unit whose business rules will be consistent with the specific needs of the child
protection system. DCF anticipates that modifying the CSA role will be a massive undertaking
requiring significant work throughout DCBHS and DCF. This transition is one of the largest
challenges facing DCF in the near term.
B.
Health Care
DCF continues its efforts to build a health care delivery system for children in placement.
DCF is challenged to redesign the delivery system and increase the quality of health care
services to children in youth in out-of-home care in accordance with MSA (Section II.F.8).
Under the MSA, the State is required to provide all children entering out-of-home care with
comprehensive medical care. Services the State has committed to provide include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pre-placement assessment for children entering out-of-home care,
A comprehensive medical examination within the first 60 days of placement,
Periodic medical exams in accordance with federal Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines,
Semi-annual dental exams for children ages 3 and older in care 6 months or longer,
Mental health assessments for children with suspected mental health needs,
Any follow-up care needed by a child (Section, II.F.2), and
Medical passports for children (Section II.F.8)
Over a year ago in May 2007, DCF released their Coordinated Health Care Plan for Children in
Out-of-Home Placement. This plan outlined the current obstacles to accessing quality health
care services for children in temporary out-of-home placement and presented DCF’s new model
for the provision of health care for these children. To summarize, this plan called for new Child
Health Units to be built in each DYFS local office; pre-placement assessments to be provided in
non-emergency settings; and modifications to the manner in which Comprehensive Medical
Examinations (CMEs) are delivered. Additionally, the plan clarified the use of Regional
42
See www.state.nj.us/def/about/case/index.html.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 71
October 2008
Diagnostic Treatment Centers (RDTCs).43 In assessing the development of a functioning health
care system for children in placement, the MSA obligations and the commitment in the health
plan have both been monitored.
During the last year, the State has made significant strides in planning for and building Child
Health Units and increasing providers for CMEs. Pre-placement assessments are now regularly
conducted in non-emergency room settings for the vast majority of children entering out-ofhome placements. In partnership with the Francois Xavier Bagnoud Center (FXB) located
within the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, nearly 4,100 children’s records
have been reviewed to ascertain their current health status. This is significant progress.
However, much critical work remains in building the infrastructure necessary to the delivery of
timely and quality health care to children in DYFS custody. Most Child Health Units are not yet
fully staffed due to the nursing shortage and other hiring barriers. The State continues to
struggle to connect children and youth with dentists who will accept Medicaid reimbursement
rates. And, in general, the State must still work to develop data systems that can efficiently and
accurately capture health care data and relay this data to workers, caregivers and youth. DCF
must be able to quickly compile and analyze individual information to present to managers,
administrators, the Monitor, and the general public.
As previously reported in the October 2007 Monitoring report, the DCF Child Health Unit staff
conducted two studies of DYFS and Medicaid data to assess the current status of health care
delivery and inform the setting of health care baselines and targets.44 The studies were of a
small, but significant sample size. Based on this information and after discussions with the
Monitor, health care baselines and targets were agreed upon. June 2008 is the date of the first
benchmark on these outcomes.
43
For additional information on this plan, see New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Coordinated Health
Care Plan for Children in Out-of-Home Placement, May 22, 2007.
http://www.nj.gov/dcf/DCFHealthCarePlan_5.22.07.pdf .
44
See Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period II Monitoring Report for Charlie
and Nadine H. v. Corzine, January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social
Policy. October 26, 2007.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 72
October 2008
Table 16: Health Care Baseline, Target and Actual
(June 2007 - June 2008)
Baseline as of
June 2008
Indicator
June 2008 Actual
June 2007
Benchmark
1. 75% of pre-placement exams completed
90%
95%
91%
in a non-emergency room setting
2. 75% of children received comprehensive
344 of 1282
medical exams completed within 60 days
(27%)
of child’s entry into care
statewide (January-April
2008)
75%
75%
118 of 154
(77%)
of children in fully
staffed health units
No Data Available
3. Medical examinations in compliance
Statewide
with EPSDT guidelines for children in
care for one year or more
151 of 157
75%
75%
(96%)
of children in fully
staffed health units
Annual
4. Semi-annual dental examinations for
No Data Available
children ages 3 and older in care 6
Statewide
Annual
months or more
60%
Annual
77 of 95
60%
(81%)
Semiof children in fully
Annual
Semi-Annual
staffed health units
Benchmark
33%
not set
No Data Available for
Semi-Annual Exams
5. Mental health assessments for children
Not Set
75%
No Data Available
with a suspected mental health need
6. Receipt of timely accessible and
appropriate follow-up care and treatment
Not Set
60%
No Data Available
to meet health care and mental health
needs
7. Children are current with immunizations
No Data Available
Statewide
Not Set
8. Children’s caregivers receive an up-todate health passport within 5 days of
placement
Not Set
149 of 157
(95%)
of children in fully
staffed health units
Data will be collected
through an upcoming
survey of foster parents
Source: June 2008 data compiled by DCF Central Office Health Unit.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 73
October 2008
As Table 16 above reflects, much of the health care data is currently not available from DCF.
On a statewide basis, DCF did not have the capacity to collect, analyze and report out on the data
in time for this monitoring report. Currently, health care data are collected and analyzed in a
variety of laborious ways. For example, information about pre-placement exams are collected by
hand in DYFS local offices and then sent to the DCF Central Office which verifies the data by
comparing data on children entering out-of-home care and the data presented by the local office.
Central Office staff is working with Safe Measures to design screens that will lift medical data
from NJ SPIRIT so that the State can better track outcomes.
Much work remains to be done in building and improving the health care system for children in
out-of-home placement. Having said this, the data are very encouraging from the four counties
with well developed Child Health Units where nurses have actively managed the health care for
children in out-of-home placement for at least three months.
The Child Health Units are a promising development, although DCF is encountering several
challenges in fully staffing these units.
DYFS local offices are in the process of building Child Health Units. These units consist of a
clinical nurse coordinator, health care case managers, and staff assistants. A regional nurse
administrator supervises each local unit. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that
began on July 1, 2007, DCF and FXB worked collaboratively to hire appropriate nurses and staff
assistants. When fully staffed, there will be 47 clinical nurse coordinators (for the 47 DYFS
local offices) and 12 regional nurse administrators (corresponding to the 12 Area Offices). As of
August 2008, 8 of the 12 regional nurse administrators’ positions and 24 of the 47 Clinical Nurse
Coordinator positions were filled.
Nurses, who are health care case managers, will be responsible for conducting pre-placement
exams and case managing the health care of 50 children each. These nurses are responsible for
coordinating and tracking the health care services of children in out-of-home placement
including ensuring that children receive a CME, EPSDT examinations as required, and semiannual dental exams for children aged 3 and older. Additional responsibilities include:
participating in Family Team Meetings, recording medical information on a child’s health care
forms, and otherwise providing medical consultation to the DYFS local office. As nurses are
hired, many participate in reviewing case files for the FXB health care audit.
Staff assistants are responsible for collecting medical records, searching databases for histories
of immunizations, and scheduling medical and mental health evaluations for children placed in
out-of-home care. DYFS local offices are allocated one staff assistant per 100 children in out-ofhome placement. Table 17 below shows the progress made toward staffing these health units.
The table reflects staffing on a county basis, but not a local office basis. Most DYFS local
offices will have a Child Health Unit on site, however, some counties, due to space issues, will
house their Child Health Units in a single DYFS local office. For example, in Gloucester, the
Child Health Units will only be located in the Gloucester East local office. However, DCF
reports the each local office currently has access to at least one nurse and at least one staff
assistant.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 74
October 2008
Table 17: Child Health Unit Staffing
(December 31, 2007 - August 14, 2008)
Health Care Case Managers
(HCCM)
County
Target
%
Filled
8
4
2
Camden
Staff Assistants (SA)
Target
%
Filled
4
50%
5
5
100%
0
3
5
60%
25%
0
5
9
56%
5
40%
0
0
2
0%
2
10
20%
0
3
4
75%
0
6
51
12%
7
20
29
69%
Gloucester
1
1
7
14%
0
4
4
100%
Hudson
1
3
18
17%
2
8
9
89%
Hunterdon
0
2
2
100%
0
1
1
100%
Mercer
1
1
12
8%
0
2
5
40%
Middlesex
2
6
15
40%
0
5
7
71%
Monmouth
0
3
13
23%
0
1
7
14%
Morris
1
3
5
60%
2
4
4
100%
Ocean
0
2
14
14%
0
2
7
29%
Passaic
2
6
11
55%
4
5
5
100%
Salem
1
3
5
60%
0
1
2
50%
Somerset
0
1
3
33%
0
1
2
50%
Sussex
0
1
2
50%
1
2
2
100%
Union
0
1
19
5%
1
4
8
50%
Warren
1
3
3
100%
0
1
2
50%
24
62
243
26%
23
79
123
64%
Atlantic
As of
12/31/07
3
As of
8/14/08
3
38%
As of
12/31/07
1
As of
8/14/08
2
Bergen
1
10
40%
5
Burlington
4
10
40%
4
5
20
Cape May
2
2
Cumberland
2
Essex
Total
Source: DCF, August 15, 2008
Sussex, Hunterdon, Bergen and Passaic counties have Child Health Units that are the most
developed. All staff assistant positions are filled and it is anticipated that the nursing positions
will be filled by the end of the year. Looking statewide, DCF and FXB are much further along in
hiring staff assistants than in hiring nurses and expect to have all positions filled by the end of
2008. Completing the hiring of nurses has proved to be more challenging. Once hired, the
background checks required by FXB and DYFS have often resulted in a three month lag between
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 75
October 2008
a nurse’s hiring date and start date. Further, FXB currently recruits for nurses with significant
pediatric and public health experience. According to FXB and DCF, the pool of available nurses
who meet these criteria is limited. Over the last few months, DCF’s Central Office health staff
has worked with FXB to identify and alleviate these barriers. DCF and FXB are now conducting
simultaneous background checks and together DCF and FXB have explored expanding
recruitment efforts and the criteria for nurses. DCF reports that these issues have largely been
resolved and should result in more expeditious hiring going forward.
During the last year, FXB staff has conducted health audits to determine the existing health care
needs of children in out-of-home placement. For these audits, nurses review each child’s DYFS
case record, Medicaid claims information and immunization history to assign a child/patient
acuity level.45 Over 4,100 children have had their records reviewed and have received an acuity
rating. As is the case nationally, the review of these 4,100 children has found that the majority
of children entering into out-of-home placement have multiple, significant health needs, thus,
reinforcing the urgency of coordinating their health care. In addition to measuring the acuity
level of children, the audit’s original intention was to help FXB and the local nurses understand
how best to staff each office. However, it appears that FXB and DCF are primarily focusing on
fully staffing each office using a ratio of one nurse for every 50 children in out-of-home care
before creating any variations based on the acuity level.
The Child Health Unit model is very promising. Preliminary data, as shown in Figure 11 below,
document improvements in children’s access to health care services in the four counties with
well developed health units. Further, it was obvious during site visits that nurses had a strong
knowledge of available health care services in the local community and were excited about
working in partnership with DYFS to meet the health care needs of children.
As previously noted, DCF currently collects and verifies medical information for children in outof-home placements through laborious hand counts. DCF’s legacy systems did not track this
information and DCF is transitioning the data to NJ SPIRIT. Because of this, DCF is unable to
provide statewide information for this monitoring period about the following: medical
examinations conducted in accordance with EPSDT guidelines, and semi-annual dental exams.
Further, DCF and the Monitor are coming to agreement on the qualitative measures necessary to
adequately evaluate the mental health assessments and follow up care for children in out-ofhome placement. In the meantime, DCF did provide the following information regarding the
health status of children in the four counties with well-developed Child Health Units.
45
For more information, see Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period III
Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine, July 1 - December 31, 2007. Washington, D.C.: Center
for the Study of Social Policy, April 16, 2008.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 76
October 2008
Figure 11:
Select Children’s Initial Health Status and Status After Receiving
3 Months of Health Care Case Management (HCCM)
120%
100%
96%
95%
81%
75%
80%
60%
60%
40%
No
baseline
set
20%
0%
EPSDT Visits
Dental Care
Children in Child Health Units
Immunization
MSA Appendix C Baseline
Source:
As data capacity builds and medical information is regularly entered into NJ SPIRIT, it is
anticipated that DCF will be able to report data on health care performance outcomes more
regularly. The Monitor will conduct periodic case record reviews to verify health data.
100 percent of children and youth received pre-placement assessments when they enter out-ofhome care, with the vast majority occurring in a non-emergency room setting.
Under the MSA, all children entering out-of-home placement are required to have a preplacement assessment. Beginning in June 2008, 95 percent of these children must have preplacement assessments in a setting that is not an emergency room (Section II.F.7 and agreed
upon benchmarks). DCF fell slightly short of the 95 percent benchmark with 91 percent of
children in June 2008 receiving pre-placement assessments in non-emergency settings. In site
visits, caseworkers and supervisors reported regularly using nurses to conduct pre-placement
assessments of children and also discussed using children’s own pediatricians or other
community based providers for these assessments. However, challenges still remain in accessing
providers for pre-placement assessments after regular business hours. Further, for adolescents
who are removed and will be placed in a residential treatment facility, a doctor is required by
these facilities to perform a pre-placement assessment. As the Child Health Units are staffed,
reportedly nurses in some offices will rotate being “on call” to provide after hours assessments.
The challenge with adolescents entering residential facilities remains. According to the State, the
Office of Child Health Services reviews the circumstances surrounding each pre-placement
assessment that occurs in an emergency room to ensure that it is warranted, such as when there is
a need for emergent medical treatment or when the child is already in the emergency room.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 77
October 2008
Table 18: Pre-Placement Assessments
(January – June 2008)
Number of
Children
Entering Care
Month
Pre-Placement
Assessment
Completed
Percent
Percent
Completed in
non-Emergency
Room Settings
January 2008
308
308
100%
86%
February 2008
382
382
100%
87%
March 2008
372
372
100%
94%
April 2008
406
405
100%
88%
May 2008
374
374
100%
90%
June 2008
407
407
100%
91%
2,249
2,248
100%
89%
Total
Source: DCF, August 15, 2008
DCF still has much work to improve the access of Comprehensive Medical Examinations for
children placed out of their homes.
Children entering out-of-home placement must receive a Comprehensive Medical Examination
(CME) within 60 days of entering placement (MSA, Section II.F.2.ii). Previously, the State
relied on the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) model as the only vehicle
to comprehensively assess the health care needs of these children. In short, CHEC examinations
require a three part examination—medical, neurodevelopmental, and mental health
assessments—and in most instances occur on a single day. CHEC examinations still take place
in counties with access to CHEC facilities. However, in accordance with the MSA and the new
Coordinated Health Care Plan for Children in Out-of-Home Placement many children are now
receiving Comprehensive Medical Examinations not through a CHEC provider, but through
other community based medical providers, in some instances their own pediatricians. The
Comprehensive Medical Examinations differ from a CHEC in that CME health examinations
require a comprehensive physical as well as an initial mental health screening. Should a child be
found to have a mental health need, a full mental health evaluation will then be conducted. There
is some community concern that there needs to be additional work with CME providers around
the content of the examination and particularly, the quality of the mental health screening
component.
In December 2007, six new agencies were brought on board to provide comprehensive health
examinations through a Request for Proposals process. By April 1, 2008, contracts were in place
for these providers who cover Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, and Union Counties. Since that
time, an additional nine providers have been brought on board (six have contracts in place).
These providers will cover Burlington, Essex, Camden and Mercer. Two are mental health
providers located in Monmouth and Bergen Counties.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 78
October 2008
Stakeholders continue to voice concern that the new CME model creates a bifurcated system of
medical and mental health assessment. Specifically, their concern is that mental health needs can
go unaddressed and that children in need of evaluation will not receive these services and the
potential insights mental health providers can provide to workers, parents, foster parents and
youth will be lost. The CME mental health screen relies on a self-reporting instrument and on
the medical provider to recognize the unique needs of children entering foster care. This is an
issue of concern to the Monitor and will be an area of further qualitative examination.
Data show that between January 1 and April 20, 2008, only 27 percent of eligible children
statewide (344 of 1,282 children) received a CME within 60 days. DCF did not have
information regarding how many of the CMEs were provided by a CHEC provider. In the four
counties that are further along in the development of Child Health Units, children fared
significantly better with success in obtaining a CME, ranging from 44 percent to 100 percent
compliance (see Table 19 below).
Table 19: Comprehensive Medical Examinations for Children Entering
Out-of-Home Placement in Four Counties with Well-Developed Child Health Units46
Local Office
Number of
Children
Entering
Placement
Children who Received a
CME within 60 Days of
Entering Placement
Number
Percent
Number of Children
who Received a CME
within 90 Days of
Entering Placement
Cumulative
Percent
Bergen
Central
Bergen
South
27
12
44%
9
78%
25
19
76%
4
92%
Hunterdon
Passaic
Central
Passaic
North
2
2
100%
0
100%
56
46
82%
7
95%
28
23
82%
3
93%
16
16
100%
0
100%
154
118
77%
23
92%
Sussex
Total
Source: DCF, August 15, 2008
46
Due to the 60-day time period to complete the CME, this table reflects children entering care between January 1,
2008 and April 30, 2008, who remained in care 30 days or more.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 79
October 2008
The Medical Passport is designed and available, but not yet fully operational in NJ SPIRIT.
Under the MSA, all children entering out-home home placement are to have a Medical Passport
created for them. This Passport will gather all relevant medical information in a single place and
be made available to foster parents, children (if old enough) and their parents. The Child Health
Unit nurses are responsible for ensuring that the Passports are created, given to children,
families, and providers, and updated regularly. The original intention was that the medical
information would be entered into NJ SPIRIT by the nurses, and then exported to a “passport”
form. Items included in the Passport should be: medication of child, immunizations,
hospitalizations, chronic health issues, practitioners and contact information, key mental health
and developmental milestones, last EPSDT, dental information, and any special transportation
needs. According to DCF, nurses are not yet entering this information into NJ SPIRIT, but
rather nurses record information in the Medical Passport form (a Microsoft Word™ document)
which is saved in a folder on the DYFS local office public drive so that the information can be
accessible to the case workers. Longer term, the plan is for nurses to enter the relevant
information into NJ SPIRIT and NJ SPIRIT will be modified to generate the Medical Passport.
Regional Diagnostic Treatment Centers (RDTCs) continue to provide a valuable service to
DCF.
Currently, DCF works with four Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (RDTCs) and one
satellite office to assist in the evaluation of children who are or may have been victims of
physical, sexual or emotional abuse or severe neglect. Historically, many children who require
RDTC services were not seen. DCF believes that the reason for this gap in service is due to
inappropriate referrals of children to RDTCs and high cancellation and “no show” rates for
appointments. In May 2007, DCF issued new referral protocols to help prioritize and target
RDTC services to youth most in need. Most offices are also now equipped with staff assistants
who help with coordinate filling spots for canceled appointments and remind responsible adults
of the RDTC appointment. To date, no formal assessment has been conducted to evaluate the
effectiveness of the protocol and the staff assistants in enhancing efficiency.
DCF hired a psychiatrist.
DCF has hired a psychiatrist, Dr. Mary Frances Beirne, to assist DCF leadership and frontline
staff understand and address the behavioral and mental health needs of children and youth who
come into contact with DYFS and/or DCBHS. The new psychiatrist will have broad
responsibilities for assisting in the implementation of the new coordinated health care plan and
reforms efforts within DCBHS. Additionally, as part of her duties, the psychiatrist will provide
clinical consultation to frontline staff, particularly consulting on psychiatric diagnosis and
psychotropic medication.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 80
October 2008
Dental care
As of January 1, 2008, the state of New Jersey increased Medicaid fee-for-service
reimbursement rates for dentist from $18.02 per exam to $64 per exam. Additionally, the State
increased all fee-for-service rates for dental procedures for children under the age of 20. Since
January, 52 new dentists have been enrolled in Medicaid fee-for-service. Reportedly, Medicaid
expects this investment to translate to rate increases for dentists within its Medicaid Health
Maintenance Organization (HMO) networks. Approximately 85 percent of the children in DYFS
custody are enrolled in Medicaid HMO, thus expansion of dental services in these networks is
urgently needed. DCF reports that the five Medicaid HMOs have increased the number of
dentists in their networks as a result of aggressive recruitment efforts.
Progress Report of the NJ DCF
January 1 – June 30, 2008
Page 81
October 2008
APPENDIX A:
New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Table of Organization
APPENDIX A:
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES TABLE OF ORGANIZATION
APPENDIX B
Caseload Data – June 2008
Table B1: Permanency
Table B2: Intake
Table B3: DYFS Supervisor/Caseload Carrying Staff Ratios
Table B4: Adoption
Table B5: Caseload Compliance
Table B6: IAIU
APPENDIX B:
Caseload Data
Table B1: Caseloads - Permanency (June 2008)
Local Office
Atlantic East
Atlantic West
Bergen Central
Bergen South
Burlington East
Burlington West
Camden Central
Camden East
Camden North
Camden South
Cape May
Cumberland East
Cumberland West
Essex Central
Essex North
Essex South
Gloucester East
Gloucester West
Hudson Central
Hudson North
Hudson South
Hudson West
Hunterdon
Mercer North
Mercer South
Middlesex Central
Middlesex Coastal
Middlesex West
Monmouth North
Monmouth South
Morris East
Morris West
Newark Center
City
Newark Northeast
Newark South
Ocean North
Number of
Permanency
Workers
22
15
23
34
35
28
34
48
38
35
23
11
26
47
30
28
22
21
26
24
25
18
8
29
33
15
57
46
33
26
11
17
Families
186
198
272
417
324
228
359
403
351
351
271
131
290
355
264
231
217
250
348
390
311
180
80
272
302
209
481
361
344
206
108
198
Average
Number of
Families
(Std = 15)
8
13
12
12
9
8
11
8
9
10
12
12
11
8
9
8
10
12
13
16
12
10
10
9
9
14
8
8
10
8
10
12
52
57
56
44
556
347
508
425
11
6
9
10
Children
Placed
106
63
81
137
142
86
122
133
124
121
95
74
119
246
58
107
103
92
173
126
154
73
19
188
132
75
164
137
210
131
34
67
Average
Number of
Children
Placed
(Std=10)
5
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
7
5
5
2
4
5
4
7
5
6
4
2
6
4
5
3
3
6
5
3
4
Office
Meets
Criteria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
244
256
190
253
5
4
3
6
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table B1: Caseloads - Permanency (June 2008)
Local Office
Ocean South
Passaic Central
Passaic North
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union Central
Union East
Union West
Warren
Total
Number of
Permanency
Workers
32
24
23
28
23
13
32
39
31
13
Families
378
354
259
186
281
167
333
214
214
221
1,355
13,331
Average
Number of
Families
(Std = 15)
12
15
11
7
12
13
10
5
7
17
Children
Placed
144
182
122
77
95
34
159
122
139
87
5,796
Average
Number of
Children
Placed
(Std=10)
5
8
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
7
Office
Meets
Criteria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
96%
Local Office
Atlantic East
Atlantic West
Bergen Central
Bergen South
Burlington East
Burlington West
Camden Central
Camden East
Camden North
Camden South
Cape May
Cumberland East
Cumberland West
Essex Central
Essex North
Essex South
Gloucester East
Gloucester West
Hudson Central
Hudson North
Hudson South
Hudson West
Hunterdon
Mercer North
Mercer South
Middlesex Central
Middlesex Coastal
Middlesex West
Monmouth North
Monmouth South
Morris East
Morris West
Newark Center City
Newark Northeast
Newark South
Ocean North
Ocean South
Passaic Central
Passaic North
Salem
Intake
Workers
18
10
16
19
20
16
18
18
13
19
10
10
21
13
15
14
14
15
20
15
17
14
6
16
15
15
17
18
22
23
12
19
15
19
19
20
25
24
28
11
Table B2: Caseloads - Intake (June 2008)
Avg. # of
Assignments
Assignments
(Std=8)
Families
147
8
175
75
8
61
119
7
184
126
7
179
104
5
164
112
7
113
146
8
160
87
5
130
77
6
131
137
7
140
84
8
87
58
6
107
99
5
172
107
8
115
63
4
84
53
4
165
87
6
132
88
6
138
83
4
230
64
4
190
102
6
143
74
5
97
39
7
60
109
7
177
104
7
66
80
5
139
120
7
148
108
6
96
137
6
268
139
6
231
70
6
93
118
6
167
67
4
119
87
5
189
80
4
164
125
6
110
164
7
269
138
6
249
177
6
165
67
6
87
Avg. # of
Families
(Std=12)
10
6
12
9
8
7
9
7
10
7
9
11
8
9
6
12
9
9
12
13
8
7
10
11
4
9
9
5
12
10
8
9
8
10
9
6
11
10
6
8
Office Meets
Criteria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Local Office
Somerset
Sussex
Union Central
Union East
Union West
Warren
Total
Intake
Workers
19
15
16
17
13
13
762
Table B2: Caseloads - Intake (June 2008)
Avg. # of
Assignments
Assignments
(Std=8)
Families
135
7
327
74
5
153
84
5
132
86
5
124
59
5
101
66
5
161
4,525
6,892
Avg. # of
Families
(Std=12)
17
10
8
7
8
12
Office Meets
Criteria
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
96%
Table B3: DYFS Supervisor/Caseload Carrying Staff Ratios (June 2008)
Supervisors
Case Work Supervisors
Local Office
Ratio
CLC
CLC
Workers
Supervisors
Workers
Supervisors
Atlantic East
45
9
0
0
5
Atlantic West
29
7
0
0
4
Bergen Central
44
10
0
0
4
Bergen South
58
13
5
1
5
Burlington East
51
9
9
2
7
Burlington West
51
10
1
1
5
Camden Central
57
13
0
0
4
Camden East
72
15
0
0
5
Camden North
55
11
0
0
5
Camden South
61
13
0
0
5
Cape May
33
7
6
2
6
Cumberland East
28
6
0
0
5
Cumberland West
44
11
4
1
4
Essex Central
74
16
0
0
5
Essex North
53
12
0
0
4
Essex South
48
12
0
0
4
Gloucester East
36
8
0
0
5
Gloucester West
42
10
0
0
4
Hudson Central
52
11
0
0
5
Hudson North
49
9
0
0
5
Hudson South
49
11
0
0
4
Hudson West
36
8
0
0
5
Hunterdon
16
4
0
0
4
Mercer North
55
13
0
0
4
Mercer South
60
12
0
0
5
Middlesex Central
34
7
0
0
5
Middlesex Coastal
83
18
0
0
5
Middlesex West
68
14
0
0
5
Monmouth North
60
11
2
1
6
Monmouth South
54
11
1
1
5
Morris East
25
6
0
0
4
Morris West
42
9
0
0
5
Newark Adoption
Office
44
10
0
0
4
Newark Center City
65
12
4
1
6
Newark Northeast
76
16
2
1
5
Newark South
76
16
0
0
5
Ocean North
74
15
0
0
5
Ocean South
70
14
0
0
5
Passaic Central
59
13
0
0
5
Passaic North
51
10
6
2
6
Salem
46
10
0
0
5
Somerset
49
12
0
0
4
Sussex
29
5
4
2
7
Office Meets
Criteria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
No
Table B3: DYFS Supervisor/Caseload Carrying Staff Ratios (June 2008)
Supervisors
Case Work Supervisors
Local Office
Ratio
CLC
CLC
Workers
Supervisors
Workers
Supervisors
Union Central
54
12
0
0
5
Union East
66
14
1
1
5
Union West
55
12
0
0
5
Warren
27
7
5
1
5
Office Meets
Criteria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total
2,405
514
50
17
5
87%
*In four offices (Cape May, Monmouth North, Newark Center City, and Passaic North) a supervisor left a SFSS2
supervisory position near the end of the monitoring period. (Two left on 6/21/08, one left on 5/29/08, and one
left on 6/7/08). All four offices assigned a casework supervisor to cover and are in the process of hiring new
supervisors.
Local Office
Atlantic East
Atlantic West
Bergen Central
Bergen South
Burlington East
Burlington West
Camden Central
Camden East
Camden North
Camden South
Cape May
Cumberland East
Essex Central
Essex North
Essex South
Gloucester West
Hudson Central
Hudson North
Hudson South
Hudson West
Hunterdon
Mercer North
Mercer South
Middlesex
Central
Middlesex
Coastal
Middlesex West
Monmouth North
Monmouth South
Morris East
Morris West
Newark Adoption
Ocean North
Ocean South
Passaic Central
Passaic North
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union Central
Table B4: Caseloads - Adoption (June 2008)
Number of
Average
Adoption
Number of
Number of
Office Met
Workers
Children
Children
Standard I
5
66
13
Yes
2
22
11
Yes
5
60
12
Yes
9
130
14
Yes
5
63
13
Yes
5
82
16
Yes
5
82
16
Yes
5
83
17
Yes
4
54
14
Yes
5
67
13
Yes
5
74
15
Yes
7
77
11
Yes
13
163
13
Yes
8
91
11
Yes
5
50
10
Yes
6
89
15
Yes
4
59
15
Yes
4
58
15
Yes
4
37
9
Yes
4
50
13
Yes
2
15
8
Yes
7
110
16
Yes
5
75
15
Yes
3
36
12
7
82
12
4
6
5
2
4
40
8
5
6
4
7
3
3
5
48
77
65
31
55
705
128
84
122
62
78
47
57
55
12
13
13
16
14
18
16
17
20
16
11
16
19
11
Office Met
Standard II
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Local Office
Union East
Union West
Warren
Total
Table B4: Caseloads - Adoption (June 2008)
Number of
Average
Adoption
Number of
Number of
Office Met
Workers
Children
Children
Standard I
11
120
11
Yes
10
106
11
Yes
5
79
16
Yes
262
3,694
95%
Office Met
Standard II
Yes
Yes
No
69%
Table B5: Caseload Compliance (June 2008)
STANDARD
TARGET
ACTUAL
Atlantic East
Atlantic West
Bergen Central
Bergen South
Burlington East
Burlington West
Camden Central
Camden East
Camden North
Camden South
Cape May
Cumberland East
Cumberland West
Essex Central
Essex North
Essex South
Gloucester East
Gloucester West
Hudson Central
Hudson North
Hudson South
Hudson West
Hunterdon
Mercer North
Mercer South
Middlesex Central
Middlesex Coastal
Middlesex West
Monmouth North
Monmouth South
Morris East
Morris West
Newark Adoption
Newark Center City
Newark Northeast
Newark South
Ocean North
Ocean South
Passaic Central
Passaic North
Salem
Somerset
Sussex
Union Central
Intake
Permanency
8 new referrals
&
12 families
74%
96%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
15 families & 10
children
in placement
95%
96%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Adoption I
Adoption
II
Supervisor
Ratio
18 Children
15 children
1 Supervisor
for 5 Staff
95%
95%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
60%
69%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
95%
96%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Table B5: Caseload Compliance (June 2008)
STANDARD
TARGET
ACTUAL
Union East
Union West
Warren
Intake
Permanency
8 new referrals
&
12 families
74%
96%
Yes
Yes
Yes
15 families & 10
children
in placement
95%
96%
Yes
Yes
No
Adoption I
Adoption
II
Supervisor
Ratio
18 Children
15 children
1 Supervisor
for 5 Staff
95%
95%
Yes
Yes
Yes
60%
69%
Yes
Yes
No
95%
96%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table B6: Caseloads - IAIU (June 2008)
Investigator #1
Investigator #2
Investigator #3
Investigator #4
Investigator #5
Investigator #6
Investigator #7
Investigator #8
Investigator #9
Investigator #10
Investigator #11
Investigator #12
Investigator #13
Investigator #14
Investigator #15
Investigator #16
Investigator #17
Investigator #18
Investigator #19
Investigator #20
Investigator #21
Investigator #22
Investigator #23
Investigator #24
Investigator #25
Investigator #26
Investigator #27
Investigator #28
Investigator #29
Investigator #30
Investigator #31
Investigator #32
Investigator #33
Investigator #34
Investigator #35
Investigator #36
Investigator #37
Investigator #38
Investigator #39
Open
Cases
9
10
0
12
11
12
9
10
12
12
12
12
11
12
11
11
12
3
10
11
7
11
4
5
12
9
8
8
12
8
0
10
9
10
5
5
9
7
7
Assignments
7
6
1
8
8
8
10
7
9
8
1
6
8
6
8
6
8
0
4
4
5
6
8
4
7
8
8
7
8
8
7
0
8
5
6
5
4
6
5
Compliance Open Cases
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Compliance Assignments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Overall
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Table B6: Caseloads - IAIU (June 2008)
Investigator #40
Investigator #41
Investigator #42
Investigator #43
Investigator #44
Investigator #45
Investigator #46
Investigator #47
Total
Open
Cases
9
7
10
8
6
9
7
4
Assignments
5
5
7
6
5
5
5
4
Compliance Open Cases
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
Compliance Assignments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
96%
Overall
Compliance
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
96%
APPENDIX C
Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report
APPENDIX C:
Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report
AAD:
Assistant Area Director
FQHC:
AOC:
Administrative Office of the Courts
FSS:
Family Service Specialist
APPU:
Adolescent Practice and Permanency Unit
FSST:
Family Service Specialist Trainee
BCWEP:
Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education
Program
FXB:
Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center
IAIU:
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit
Comprehensive Health Evaluation for
Children
IT:
Information Technology
LOBA:
local office Bank Account
CHU:
Child Health Unit
MSA:
Modified Settlement Agreement
CIACC:
Children’s Inter-Agency Coordinating
Council
NJ SPIRIT:
New Jersey Spirit
OCA:
Office of the Child Advocate
CME:
Comprehensive Medical Examination
OOL:
Office of Licensing
CMO:
Care Management Organization
PALS:
Peace: A Learned Solution
CPM:
Case Practice Model
QA:
Quality Assurance
CQI:
Continuous Quality Improvement
QSR:
Quality Service Review
CSA:
Contracted System Administrator
RDTC:
CSSP:
Center for the Study of Social Policy
Regional Diagnostic and Treatment
Center
CWPPG:
Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group
RFP:
Request for Proposal
CWTA:
Child Welfare Training Academy
SACWIS:
DCBHS:
Division of Child Behavioral Health
Services
State’s Automated Child Welfare
Information System
SCR:
State Central Registry
CHEC:
Federally Qualified Health Center
DCF:
Department of Children and Families
SFI:
Strengthening Families Initiative
DDD:
Division of Developmental Disabilities
SFSS:
Supervising Family Service Specialist
DMHS:
Division of Mental Health Services
SIBS:
Siblings in Best Settings
DPCP:
Division of Prevention and Community
Partnerships
SIS:
DYFS Service Information System
SPRU:
Special Response Unit
DYFS:
Division of Youth and Family Services
TPR:
Termination of Parental Rights
EPSDT:
Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis
and Treatment
UMDNJ:
University of Medicine and Dentistry of
New Jersey
FAFS:
Foster and Adoptive Family Services
WIC:
Women, Infants, and Children
FFT:
Functional Family Therapy
YCM:
Youth Case Management
P